↓ Skip to main content

Screen-based behaviour in school-aged children with long-term illness

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
106 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
Screen-based behaviour in school-aged children with long-term illness
Published in
BMC Public Health, February 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12889-016-2804-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Daniela Husarova, Andrea Madarasova Geckova, Lukas Blinka, Anna Sevcikova, Jitse P. van Dijk, Sijmen A. Reijneveld

Abstract

Evidence is lacking on the screen-based behaviour of adolescents with a chronic condition. The aim of our study was to analyse differences in screen-based behaviour of adolescents by long-term illness, asthma and learning disabilities. We used data from the cross-sectional Health Behaviour of School-aged Children study collected in 2014 among Slovak adolescents (age 13 to 15 years old, N = 2682, 49.7 % boys). We analysed the associations between screen-based behaviour and long-term illness, asthma and learning disabilities using logistic regression models adjusted for gender. We found no associations between screen-based behaviour and long-term illness, except that children with asthma had a 1.60-times higher odds of excessively playing computer games than healthy children (95 % confidence interval of odds ratio (CI): 1.11-2.30). Children with learning disabilities had 1.71-times higher odds of risky use of the Internet (95 % CI: 1.19-2.45). Adolescents with a long-term illness or with a chronic condition or a learning disability do not differ from their peers in screen-based activities. Exceptions are children with asthma and children with learning disabilities, who reported more risky screen-based behaviour.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 106 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 106 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 20 19%
Researcher 15 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 11%
Student > Bachelor 11 10%
Other 6 6%
Other 15 14%
Unknown 27 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 17 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 15 14%
Psychology 11 10%
Sports and Recreations 7 7%
Social Sciences 7 7%
Other 17 16%
Unknown 32 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 September 2016.
All research outputs
#13,456,215
of 22,844,985 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#9,557
of 14,886 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#193,567
of 400,364 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#149
of 242 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,844,985 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,886 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.9. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% 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 400,364 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 242 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.