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 |
Cost-effectiveness analysis of neonatal hearing screening program in china: should universal screening be prioritized?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Health Services Research, April 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1472-6963-12-97 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Li-Hui Huang, Luo Zhang, Ruo-Yan Gai Tobe, Fang-Hua Qi, Long Sun, Yue Teng, Qing-Lin Ke, Fei Mai, Xue-Feng Zhang, Mei Zhang, Ru-Lan Yang, Lin Tu, Hong-Hui Li, Yan-Qing Gu, Sai-Nan Xu, Xiao-Yan Yue, Xiao-Dong Li, Bei-Er Qi, Xiao-Huan Cheng, Wei Tang, Ling-Zhong Xu, De-Min Han |
| Abstract |
Neonatal hearing screening (NHS) has been routinely offered as a vital component of early childhood care in developed countries, whereas such a screening program is still at the pilot or preliminary stage as regards its nationwide implementation in developing countries. To provide significant evidence for health policy making in China, this study aims to determine the cost-effectiveness of NHS program implementation in case of eight provinces of China. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 | 2 | 67% |
| Spain | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Scientists | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 99 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Cuba | 2 | 2% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 96 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 20 | 20% |
| Researcher | 10 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 9 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 7% |
| Other | 24 | 24% |
| Unknown | 20 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 32 | 32% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 12 | 12% |
| Social Sciences | 7 | 7% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 5 | 5% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 16 | 16% |
| Unknown | 23 | 23% |
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 06 December 2012.
All research outputs
#17,656,152
of 22,664,267 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#6,242
of 7,574 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#120,823
of 161,948 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#56
of 72 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,664,267 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,574 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% 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 161,948 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 72 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.