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 |
Should young people be paid for getting tested? A national comparative study to evaluate patient financial incentives for chlamydia screening
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Public Health, April 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2458-12-261 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Dominik Zenner, Darko Molinar, Tom Nichols, Johanna Riha, Mary Macintosh, Anthony Nardone |
| Abstract |
Patient financial incentives ("incentives") have been widely used to promote chlamydia screening uptake amongst 15-24 year olds in England, but there is scarce evidence of their effectiveness. The objectives of the study were to describe incentives used to promote chlamydia screening in Primary Care Trusts (PCTs) in England and to evaluate their impact on coverage and positivity rate. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 6 | 60% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 10% |
| Australia | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 2 | 20% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 9 | 90% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 10% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 37 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 9 | 24% |
| Researcher | 9 | 24% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 2 | 5% |
| Unknown | 8 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 10 | 26% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 11% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 11% |
| Psychology | 4 | 11% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 4 | 11% |
| Unknown | 10 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 03 May 2012.
All research outputs
#5,383,357
of 22,664,267 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#5,260
of 14,743 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#36,403
of 160,991 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#43
of 174 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,664,267 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,743 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its peers.
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 160,991 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 174 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.