↓ Skip to main content

Health effects of smoke from planned burns: a study protocol

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

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
73 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
Health effects of smoke from planned burns: a study protocol
Published in
BMC Public Health, February 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12889-016-2862-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

David O’Keeffe, Martine Dennekamp, Lahn Straney, Mahjabeen Mazhar, Tom O’Dwyer, Anjali Haikerwal, Fabienne Reisen, Michael J. Abramson, Fay Johnston

Abstract

Large populations are exposed to smoke from bushfires and planned burns. Studies investigating the association between bushfire smoke and health have typically used hospital or ambulance data and been done retrospectively on large populations. The present study is designed to prospectively assess the association between individual level health outcomes and exposure to smoke from planned burns. A prospective cohort study will be conducted during a planned burn season in three locations in Victoria (Australia) involving 50 adult participants who undergo three rounds of cardiorespiratory medical tests, including measurements for lung inflammation, endothelial function, heart rate variability and markers of inflammation. In addition daily symptoms and twice daily lung function are recorded. Outdoor particulate air pollution is continuously measured during the study period in these locations. The data will be analysed using mixed effect models adjusting for confounders. Planned burns depend on weather conditions and dryness of 'fuels' (i.e. forest). It is potentially possible that no favourable conditions occur during the study period. To reduce the risk of this occurring, three separate locations have been identified as having a high likelihood of planned burn smoke exposure during the study period, with the full study being rolled out in two of these three locations. A limitation of this study is exposure misclassification as outdoor measurements will be conducted as a measure for personal exposures. However this misclassification will be reduced as participants are only eligible if they live in close proximity to the monitors.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 73 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 73 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 18%
Researcher 12 16%
Student > Master 9 12%
Student > Bachelor 8 11%
Other 4 5%
Other 8 11%
Unknown 19 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 13 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 11%
Engineering 5 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 5%
Other 11 15%
Unknown 22 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 24 February 2016.
All research outputs
#18,443,697
of 22,851,489 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#12,876
of 14,887 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#216,988
of 298,866 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#190
of 217 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,851,489 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,887 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 6th percentile – i.e., 6% 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 298,866 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 217 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.