↓ Skip to main content


Overview of attention for article published in Emerging Themes in Epidemiology, January 2004
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

2 tweeters


21 Dimensions

Readers on

64 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.
Published in
Emerging Themes in Epidemiology, January 2004
DOI 10.1186/1742-7622-1-4
Pubmed ID

Sharon M McDonnell, Paul Bolton, Nadine Sunderland, Ben Bellows, Mark White, Eric Noji


BACKGROUND: Applied epidemiologists are increasingly working in areas of insecurity and active conflict to define the health risks, suggest feasible means to reduce these risks and, monitor the capacity and reconstruction of the public health system. In 2001, The Carter Center and the United States Institute for Peace sponsored a conference within which "Violence and Health" was discussed and a working group on applied epidemiology formed. The group was tasked to describe the skills that are essential to effective functioning in these settings and thereby provide guidance to the applied epidemiology training programs. METHODS: We conducted a literature review and consultation of a convenience sample of practitioners of applied epidemiology with experience in conflict areas. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: The health programs designed to prevent and mitigate conflict are in their early stages of implementation and the evaluation measures for success are still being defined. The practice of epidemiology in conflict must occur within a larger humanitarian and political context to be effective. The skills required extend beyond the normal epidemiological training that focuses on the valid collection and interpretation of data and fall into two general categories: (1) Conducting a thorough assessment of the conflict setting in order to design more effective public health action in conflict settings, and (2) Communicating effectively to guide health program implementation, to advocate for needed policy changes and to facilitate interagency coordination. These are described and illustrated using examples from different countries.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters 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 64 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Sierra Leone 1 2%
Colombia 1 2%
Thailand 1 2%
Unknown 61 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 16%
Student > Master 7 11%
Other 6 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 9%
Other 17 27%
Unknown 5 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 28 44%
Social Sciences 10 16%
Psychology 7 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 5%
Other 7 11%
Unknown 6 9%

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 31 May 2017.
All research outputs
of 12,487,260 outputs
Outputs from Emerging Themes in Epidemiology
of 103 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 116,903 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Emerging Themes in Epidemiology
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,487,260 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 103 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% 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 116,903 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them