↓ Skip to main content

The FIFA Women’s World Cup in Germany 2011 – A practical example for tailoring an event-specific enhanced infectious disease surveillance system

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, July 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
33 Mendeley
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.
Title
The FIFA Women’s World Cup in Germany 2011 – A practical example for tailoring an event-specific enhanced infectious disease surveillance system
Published in
BMC Public Health, July 2012
DOI 10.1186/1471-2458-12-576
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anja Takla, Edward Velasco, Justus Benzler

Abstract

Mass gatherings require a decision from public health authorities on how to monitor infectious diseases during the event. The appropriate level of enhanced surveillance depends on parameters like the scale of the event (duration, spatial distribution, season), participants' origin, amount of public attention, and baseline disease activity in the host country. For the FIFA Men's World Cup 2006, Germany implemented enhanced surveillance. As the scale of the FIFA Women's World Cup (June 26 - July 17, 2011) was estimated to be substantially smaller in size, visitors and duration, it was not feasible to simply adopt the previously implemented measures. Our aim was therefore to develop a strategy to tailor an event-specific enhanced surveillance for this smaller-scale mass gathering.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 3%
Brazil 1 3%
Unknown 31 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 21%
Researcher 7 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 15%
Student > Bachelor 3 9%
Student > Postgraduate 2 6%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 7 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 45%
Sports and Recreations 3 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 6%
Computer Science 2 6%
Social Sciences 2 6%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 6 18%
Attention Score in Context

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 31 July 2012.
All research outputs
#18,312,024
of 22,673,450 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#12,763
of 14,752 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#125,738
of 164,116 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#311
of 348 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,673,450 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% 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 6th percentile – i.e., 6% 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 164,116 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 348 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.