↓ Skip to main content

Further shrinking the malaria map: how can geospatial science help to achieve malaria elimination?

Overview of attention for article published in Lancet Infectious Diseases, August 2013
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 (88th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
15 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
70 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
205 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
Further shrinking the malaria map: how can geospatial science help to achieve malaria elimination?
Published in
Lancet Infectious Diseases, August 2013
DOI 10.1016/s1473-3099(13)70140-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Archie CA Clements, Heidi L Reid, Gerard C Kelly, Simon I Hay

Abstract

Malaria is one of the biggest contributors to deaths caused by infectious disease. More than 30 countries have planned or started programmes to target malaria elimination, often with explicit support from international donors. The spatial distribution of malaria, at all levels of endemicity, is heterogeneous. Moreover, populations living in low-endemic settings where elimination efforts might be targeted are often spatially heterogeneous. Geospatial methods, therefore, can help design, target, monitor, and assess malaria elimination programmes. Rapid advances in technology and analytical methods have allowed the spatial prediction of malaria risk and the development of spatial decision support systems, which can enhance elimination programmes by enabling accurate and timely resource allocation. However, no framework exists for assessment of geospatial instruments. Research is needed to identify measurable indicators of elimination progress and to quantify the effect of geospatial methods in achievement of elimination outcomes.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 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 205 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
India 2 <1%
United States 2 <1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Hong Kong 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Indonesia 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Argentina 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 193 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 50 24%
Researcher 29 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 29 14%
Student > Bachelor 14 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 5%
Other 40 20%
Unknown 32 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 41 20%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 36 18%
Computer Science 17 8%
Environmental Science 14 7%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 9 4%
Other 44 21%
Unknown 44 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 21 August 2013.
All research outputs
#3,004,257
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Lancet Infectious Diseases
#2,775
of 6,038 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,922
of 210,071 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Lancet Infectious Diseases
#20
of 60 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,038 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 92.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% 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 210,071 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 60 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.