↓ Skip to main content

Protocol of a test of hearing health education programs for farm and rural youth

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
22 Mendeley
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.
Title
Protocol of a test of hearing health education programs for farm and rural youth
Published in
BMC Public Health, October 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12889-015-2393-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marjorie C. McCullagh, Tanima Banerjee, James Yang

Abstract

Farm and rural youth have frequent exposure to hazardous noise on the farm and recreationally, and have an increased prevalence of noise-induced hearing loss. There is a lack of programs to prepare this high-risk population to use hearing conservation strategies. The purpose of this project is to test innovative hearing health education programs delivered to a large target group and to determine the effectiveness and sustainability of these programs in promoting hearing health among farm and rural youth. Specifically, this project includes: a) an interactive face-to-face informational program alone, b) an interactive face-to-face informational program followed by an Internet-based booster, and c) a no-intervention control. Sites will include selected affiliates of a major farm youth safety education organization. Data will be collected at baseline, 3, and 12 months. A linear mixed model will be used to compare the effectiveness of the three interventions over time. Descriptive statistics will be used to compare program costs and sustainability ratings. Outcomes of this project will provide knowledge necessary to implement quality and cost-effective services to farm and rural youth, a high-risk and underserved population, that can be implemented and sustained after the study is completed. Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02472821 Registered 09 Jun, 2015.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 22 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 36%
Researcher 3 14%
Student > Bachelor 2 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 5%
Other 4 18%
Unknown 2 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 5 23%
Social Sciences 3 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 9%
Psychology 2 9%
Environmental Science 1 5%
Other 4 18%
Unknown 5 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 20 November 2015.
All research outputs
#9,905,706
of 12,372,633 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#7,258
of 8,418 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#222,434
of 328,008 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#934
of 1,099 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,372,633 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,418 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.7. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 328,008 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1,099 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.