↓ Skip to main content

Assessing smoking status in disadvantaged populations: is computer administered self report an accurate and acceptable measure?

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, November 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
30 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
Assessing smoking status in disadvantaged populations: is computer administered self report an accurate and acceptable measure?
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, November 2011
DOI 10.1186/1471-2288-11-153
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jamie Bryant, Billie Bonevski, Christine Paul, Christophe Lecathelinais

Abstract

Self report of smoking status is potentially unreliable in certain situations and in high-risk populations. This study aimed to determine the accuracy and acceptability of computer administered self-report of smoking status among a low socioeconomic (SES) population.

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 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 30 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 27%
Student > Bachelor 5 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 10%
Student > Postgraduate 3 10%
Student > Master 3 10%
Other 5 17%
Unknown 3 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 6 20%
Social Sciences 6 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 10%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 7%
Other 6 20%
Unknown 3 10%

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 29 August 2019.
All research outputs
#6,911,194
of 22,662,201 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1,027
of 2,000 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#62,921
of 239,304 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#8
of 24 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 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,000 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. 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 239,304 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 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 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 66% of its contemporaries.