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 |
Descriptive review and evaluation of the functioning of the International Health Regulations (IHR) Annex 2
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Globalization and Health, January 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1744-8603-8-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Aranka Anema, Eric Druyts, Helge G Hollmeyer, Maxwell C Hardiman, Kumanan Wilson |
| Abstract |
The International Health Regulations (IHRs) (2005) was developed with the aim of governing international responses to public health risks and emergencies. The document requires all 194 World Health Organization (WHO) Member States to detect, assess, notify and report any potential public health emergency of international concern (PHEIC) under specific timelines. Annex 2 of the IHR outlines decision-making criteria for State-appointed National Focal Points (NFP) to report potential PHEICs to the WHO, and is a critical component to the effective functioning of the IHRs. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 | 2 | 67% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Scientists | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 68 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 3% |
| United States | 1 | 1% |
| Nigeria | 1 | 1% |
| Brazil | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 63 | 93% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 13 | 19% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 9 | 13% |
| Researcher | 9 | 13% |
| Other | 7 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 7% |
| Other | 14 | 21% |
| Unknown | 11 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 27 | 40% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 8 | 12% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 7% |
| Arts and Humanities | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 10 | 15% |
| Unknown | 11 | 16% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 11 July 2021.
All research outputs
#5,566,605
of 22,661,413 outputs
Outputs from Globalization and Health
#691
of 1,096 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#49,608
of 243,229 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Globalization and Health
#23
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,661,413 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,096 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.6. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% 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 243,229 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 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.