| Title |
Disseminating a cervical cancer screening program through primary physicians in Hong Kong: a qualitative study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Health Services Research, February 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1472-6963-14-85 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Cecilia S Fabrizio, Christopher M Shea |
| Abstract |
Organized screening programs are more effective and equitable than opportunistic screening, yet governments face challenges to implement evidence-based programs. The objective of this study was to identify reasons for low levels of adoption among primary care physicians of a government sponsored Cervical Screening Program (CSP). |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 67% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 50 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Colombia | 1 | 2% |
| United States | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 48 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 12 | 24% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 18% |
| Researcher | 5 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 8% |
| Other | 11 | 22% |
| Unknown | 4 | 8% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 20 | 40% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 9 | 18% |
| Social Sciences | 6 | 12% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 3 | 6% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 6 | 12% |
| Unknown | 5 | 10% |
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 14 March 2014.
All research outputs
#18,901,060
of 24,092,222 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#6,726
of 8,108 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#157,527
of 225,466 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#114
of 133 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,092,222 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,108 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.1. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% 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 225,466 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 133 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.