↓ Skip to main content

Potential for airborne transmission of infection in the waiting areas of healthcare premises: stochastic analysis using a Monte Carlo model

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Infectious Diseases, August 2010
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
52 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
143 Mendeley
Title
Potential for airborne transmission of infection in the waiting areas of healthcare premises: stochastic analysis using a Monte Carlo model
Published in
BMC Infectious Diseases, August 2010
DOI 10.1186/1471-2334-10-247
Pubmed ID
Authors

Clive B Beggs, Simon J Shepherd, Kevin G Kerr

Abstract

Although many infections that are transmissible from person to person are acquired through direct contact between individuals, a minority, notably pulmonary tuberculosis (TB), measles and influenza are known to be spread by the airborne route. Airborne infections pose a particular threat to susceptible individuals whenever they are placed together with the index case in confined spaces. With this in mind, waiting areas of healthcare facilities present a particular challenge, since large numbers of people, some of whom may have underlying conditions which predispose them to infection, congregate in such spaces and can be exposed to an individual who may be shedding potentially pathogenic microorganisms. It is therefore important to understand the risks posed by infectious individuals in waiting areas, so that interventions can be developed to minimise the spread of airborne infections.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users 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 143 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 5 3%
Poland 1 <1%
Unknown 137 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 32 22%
Student > Master 23 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 13%
Other 10 7%
Student > Bachelor 9 6%
Other 22 15%
Unknown 28 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 39 27%
Engineering 24 17%
Environmental Science 5 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 3%
Other 28 20%
Unknown 39 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 07 September 2022.
All research outputs
#2,724,016
of 25,388,353 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#861
of 8,569 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,271
of 103,787 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#8
of 40 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,388,353 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,569 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 103,787 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 40 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.