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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Validating estimates of problematic drug use in England
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Public Health, October 2007
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2458-7-286 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Martin Frisher, Heath Heatlie, Matthew Hickman |
| Abstract |
UK Government expenditure on combatting drug abuse is based on estimates of illicit drug users, yet the validity of these estimates is unknown. This study aims to assess the face validity of problematic drug use (PDU) and injecting drug use (IDU) estimates for all English Drug Action Teams (DATs) in 2001. The estimates were derived from a statistical model using the Multiple Indicator Method (MIM). Questionnaire study, in which the 149 English Drug Action Teams were asked to evaluate the MIM estimates for their DAT. The response rate was 60% and there were no indications of selection bias. Of responding DATs, 64% thought the PDU estimates were about right or did not dispute them, while 27% had estimates that were too low and 9% were too high. The figures for the IDU estimates were 52% (about right), 44% (too low) and 3% (too high). This is the first UK study to determine the validity estimates of problematic and injecting drug misuse. The results of this paper highlight the need to consider criterion and face validity when evaluating estimates of the number of drug users. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 8 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 8 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 3 | 38% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 25% |
| Researcher | 2 | 25% |
| Other | 1 | 13% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 63% |
| Psychology | 1 | 13% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 13% |
| Unknown | 1 | 13% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 21 July 2014.
All research outputs
#7,476,657
of 22,856,968 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#7,898
of 14,892 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,316
of 72,057 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#15
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,856,968 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,892 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 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% 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 72,057 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.