↓ Skip to main content

高齢者における健康食品の情報源に関する調査―インターネット調査および紙媒体調査の比較―

Overview of attention for article published in Shokuhin eiseigaku zasshi Journal of the Food Hygienic Society of Japan, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
16 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
高齢者における健康食品の情報源に関する調査―インターネット調査および紙媒体調査の比較―
Published in
Shokuhin eiseigaku zasshi Journal of the Food Hygienic Society of Japan, January 2017
DOI 10.3358/shokueishi.58.107
Pubmed ID
Authors

Etsuko Kobayashi, Yoko Sato, Keizo Umegaki, Tsuyoshi Chiba

Abstract

The prevalence of health foods is increasing in Japan, especially among elderly people. The internet is widely used as an information source, but it is not clear whether elderly people get information about health foods via the internet or not. To clarify this issue, we conducted two questionnaire surveys; one on a website (internet survey) and one in the local community (paper survey). The internet survey showed that a lot of elderly people use the internet to get information and also to purchase health foods. On the other hand, paper survey showed that a smaller proportion of elderly people used the internet, compared to the internet survey. Instead, they got information from their friends, health-care professionals, or various media sources, such as television, newspapers and magazines. Our results indicate that many elderly people don't use the internet to get information about health foods. Adequate ways to inform them about health foods are needed to reduce adverse events associated with health food use.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 16 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 25%
Student > Bachelor 3 19%
Other 2 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Unknown 3 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 3 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 19%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 13%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 6%
Sports and Recreations 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Unknown 5 31%
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 16 June 2017.
All research outputs
#17,289,387
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Shokuhin eiseigaku zasshi Journal of the Food Hygienic Society of Japan
#299
of 521 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#267,895
of 421,709 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Shokuhin eiseigaku zasshi Journal of the Food Hygienic Society of Japan
#5
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 521 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.6. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% 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 421,709 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 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 62% of its contemporaries.