↓ Skip to main content

Misled about lead: an assessment of online public health education material from Australia’s lead mining and smelting towns

Overview of attention for article published in Environmental Health, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
43 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
Misled about lead: an assessment of online public health education material from Australia’s lead mining and smelting towns
Published in
Environmental Health, January 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12940-015-0085-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marianne Sullivan, Donna Green

Abstract

This study assesses the accuracy and comprehensiveness of online public health education materials from the three Australian cities with active lead mines and or smelters: Broken Hill, Mount Isa and Port Pirie. Qualitative content analysis of online Australian material with comparison to international best practice where possible. All materials provided incomplete information about the health effects of lead and pathways of exposure compared to best practice materials. Inconsistent strategies to reduce exposure to lead were identified among the Australian cities, and some evidence-based best practices were not included. The materials normalised environmental lead and neglected to identify that there is no safe level of lead, or that primary prevention is the best strategy for protecting children's health. Health education materials need to clearly state health risks from lead across developmental stages and for sensitive populations, integrate a primary prevention perspective, and provide comprehensive evidence-based recommendations for reducing lead exposure in and around the home. Families who rely on information provided by these online public education materials are likely to be inadequately informed about the importance of protecting their children from exposure to lead and strategies for doing so.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters 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 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 43 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 19%
Student > Bachelor 7 16%
Researcher 5 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 9%
Other 3 7%
Other 10 23%
Unknown 6 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 23%
Social Sciences 7 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 5%
Environmental Science 2 5%
Other 11 26%
Unknown 8 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 24. 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 22 August 2016.
All research outputs
#1,165,435
of 20,568,640 outputs
Outputs from Environmental Health
#254
of 1,415 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,533
of 397,150 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Environmental Health
#21
of 94 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 20,568,640 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,415 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 397,150 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 94 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.