You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Voices for food: methodologies for implementing a multi-state community-based intervention in rural, high poverty communities
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Public Health, August 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12889-018-5957-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Suzanne Stluka, Lindsay Moore, Heather A. Eicher-Miller, Lisa Franzen-Castle, Becky Henne, Donna Mehrle, Daniel Remley, Lacey McCormack |
| Abstract |
Rural communities experience unique barriers to food access when compared to urban areas and food security is a public health issue in rural, high poverty communities. A multi-leveled socio-ecological intervention to develop food policy councils (FPCs), and improve food security in rural communities was created. Methods to carry out such an intervention were developed and are described. A longitudinal, matched treatment and comparison study was conducted in 24 rural, high poverty counties in South Dakota, Indiana, Missouri, Michigan, Nebraska and Ohio. Counties were assigned to a treatment (n = 12) or comparison (n = 12) group. Intervention activities focus on three key components that impact food security: 1) community coaching by Extension Educators/field staff, 2) FPC development, and 3) development of a MyChoice food pantry. Community coaching was only provided to intervention counties. Evaluation components focus on three levels of the intervention: 1) Community (FPCs), 2) Food Pantry Organization, and 3) Pantry Client & Families. Participants in this study were community stakeholders, food pantry directors, staff/volunteers and food pantry clients. Pantry food access/availability including pantry food quality and quantity, household food security and pantry client dietary intake are dependent variables. The results of this study will provide a framework for utilizing a multi-leveled socio-ecological intervention with the purpose of improving food security in rural, high poverty communities. Additionally, the results of this study will yield evidence-based best practices and tools for both FPC development and the transition to a guided-client choice model of distribution in food pantries. ClinicalTrials.gov; NCT03566095 . Retrospectively registered on June, 21, 2018. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 5 | 50% |
| Unknown | 5 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 9 | 90% |
| Scientists | 1 | 10% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 103 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 103 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 19 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 13 | 13% |
| Researcher | 10 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 5% |
| Other | 17 | 17% |
| Unknown | 26 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 19 | 18% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 15 | 15% |
| Social Sciences | 10 | 10% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 20 | 19% |
| Unknown | 30 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 December 2020.
All research outputs
#2,083,460
of 23,100,534 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#2,304
of 15,064 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#45,159
of 334,232 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#52
of 275 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,100,534 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 15,064 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 334,232 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 275 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.