| Title |
Telling partners about chlamydia: how acceptable are the new technologies?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Infectious Diseases, March 2010
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2334-10-58 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Carol A Hopkins, Meredith J Temple-Smith, Christopher K Fairley, Natasha L Pavlin, Jane E Tomnay, Rhian M Parker, Frank J Bowden, Darren B Russell, Jane S Hocking, Marcus Y Chen |
| Abstract |
Partner notification is accepted as a vital component in the control of chlamydia. However, in reality, many sexual partners of individuals diagnosed with chlamydia are never informed of their risk. The newer technologies of email and SMS have been used as a means of improving partner notification rates. This study explored the use and acceptability of different partner notification methods to help inform the development of strategies and resources to increase the number of partners notified. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 44 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 9 | 20% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 16% |
| Researcher | 6 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 9% |
| Lecturer | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 6 | 14% |
| Unknown | 9 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 15 | 34% |
| Social Sciences | 10 | 23% |
| Arts and Humanities | 2 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 4 | 9% |
| Unknown | 9 | 20% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 August 2011.
All research outputs
#3,826,357
of 23,312,088 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#1,227
of 7,804 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,264
of 94,609 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#10
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,312,088 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,804 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 94,609 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 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 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 71% of its contemporaries.