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 |
A qualitative study exploring stakeholder perspectives on the use of biological samples for future unspecified research in Malawi
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Ethics, July 2020
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12910-020-00503-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Limbanazo Matandika, Ruby Tionenji Ngóngóla, Khama Mita, Lucinda Manda-Taylor, Kate Gooding, Daniel Mwale, Francis Masiye, Joseph Mfutso-Bengo |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Malawi | 3 | 60% |
| Canada | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 1 | 20% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 2 | 40% |
| Members of the public | 2 | 40% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 26 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 3 | 12% |
| Lecturer | 2 | 8% |
| Other | 2 | 8% |
| Librarian | 1 | 4% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 4 | 15% |
| Unknown | 13 | 50% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unspecified | 2 | 8% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 8% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 4% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 17 | 65% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 July 2020.
All research outputs
#6,996,563
of 23,221,875 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#587
of 1,009 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#149,388
of 399,783 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#18
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,221,875 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,009 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 41st percentile – i.e., 41% 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 399,783 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.