| Title |
Against conventional wisdom: when the public, the media, and medical practice collide
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, December 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1472-6947-13-s3-s4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jakob D Jensen, Melinda Krakow, Kevin K John, Miao Liu |
| Abstract |
In 2009, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force released new mammography screening guidelines that sparked a torrent of criticism. The subsequent conflict was significant and pitted the Task Force against other health organizations, advocacy groups, the media, and the public at large. We argue that this controversy was driven by the systematic removal of uncertainty from science communication. To increase comprehension and adherence, health information communicators remove caveats, limitations, and hedging so science appears simple and more certain. This streamlining process is, in many instances, initiated by researchers as they engage in dissemination of their findings, and it is facilitated by public relations professionals, journalists, public health practitioners, and others whose tasks involve using the results from research for specific purposes. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 20% |
| India | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 3 | 60% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 2 | 40% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 40% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 49 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 10 | 20% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 16% |
| Researcher | 6 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 4% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 7 | 14% |
| Unknown | 14 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 11 | 22% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 10% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 8% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 4% |
| Psychology | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 5 | 10% |
| Unknown | 20 | 41% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 18 November 2019.
All research outputs
#12,695,167
of 22,736,112 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#849
of 1,985 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#157,234
of 306,486 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#28
of 44 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,736,112 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,985 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% 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 306,486 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 44 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.