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 |
The Worksite Health Promotion Capacity Instrument (WHPCI): development, validation and approaches for determining companies' levels of health promotion capacity
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Public Health, September 2010
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2458-10-550 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Julia Jung, Anika Nitzsche, Melanie Neumann, Markus Wirtz, Christoph Kowalski, Jürgen Wasem, Brigitte Stieler-Lorenz, Holger Pfaff |
| Abstract |
The Worksite Health Promotion Capacity Instrument (WHPCI) was developed to assess two key factors for effective worksite health promotion: collective willingness and the systematic implementation of health promotion activities in companies. This study evaluates the diagnostic qualities of the WHPCI based on its subscales Health Promotion Willingness and Health Promotion Management, which can be used to place companies into four different categories based on their level of health promotion capacity. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 65 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 5% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 3% |
| Ireland | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 59 | 91% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 11 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 10 | 15% |
| Researcher | 8 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 8% |
| Other | 18 | 28% |
| Unknown | 5 | 8% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 22% |
| Social Sciences | 10 | 15% |
| Psychology | 7 | 11% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 9% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 5 | 8% |
| Other | 14 | 22% |
| Unknown | 9 | 14% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 01 January 2014.
All research outputs
#7,169,715
of 22,662,201 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#7,525
of 14,741 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,457
of 95,260 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#31
of 77 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,662,201 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,741 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 47th percentile – i.e., 47% 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 95,260 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 64% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 77 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its contemporaries.