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 |
Colorectal cancer screening knowledge, attitudes and behavioural intention among Indigenous Western Australians
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Public Health, July 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2458-12-528 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Aliki Christou, Sandra C Thompson |
| Abstract |
Indigenous Australians are significantly less likely to participate in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening compared to non-Indigenous people. This study aimed to identify important factors influencing the decision to undertake screening using Faecal Occult Blood Testing (FOBT) among Indigenous Australians. Very little evidence exists to guide interventions and programmatic approaches for facilitating screening uptake in this population in order to reduce the disparity in colorectal cancer outcomes. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 122 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Israel | 1 | <1% |
| Ghana | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 120 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 23 | 19% |
| Researcher | 19 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 14 | 11% |
| Other | 6 | 5% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 5% |
| Other | 23 | 19% |
| Unknown | 31 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 41 | 34% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 18 | 15% |
| Social Sciences | 6 | 5% |
| Psychology | 4 | 3% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 2% |
| Other | 16 | 13% |
| Unknown | 34 | 28% |
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 26 November 2012.
All research outputs
#15,247,248
of 22,671,366 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#11,252
of 14,752 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#104,095
of 163,884 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#254
of 334 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,671,366 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,752 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 16th percentile – i.e., 16% 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 163,884 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 334 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.