↓ Skip to main content

People, Patches, and Parasites: The Case of Trypanosomiasis in Zimbabwe

Overview of attention for article published in Human Ecology, September 2017
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 (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
3 blogs
twitter
11 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
67 Mendeley
Title
People, Patches, and Parasites: The Case of Trypanosomiasis in Zimbabwe
Published in
Human Ecology, September 2017
DOI 10.1007/s10745-017-9929-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ian Scoones, V. Dzingirai, N. Anderson, E. MacLeod, L. Mangwanya, F. Matawa, A. Murwira, L. Nyakupinda, W. Shereni, S. C. Welburn

Abstract

Understanding the socio-ecology of disease requires careful attention to the role of patches within disease landscapes. Such patches, and the interfaces between different socio-epidemiological systems, we argue, have important implications for disease control. We conducted an interdisciplinary study over three years to investigate the spatial dynamics of human and animal trypanosomiasis in the Zambezi valley, Zimbabwe. We used a habitat niche model to identify changes in suitable habitat for tsetse fly vectors over time, and this is related to local villagers' understandings of where flies are found. Fly trapping and blood DNA analysis of livestock highlighted the patchy distribution of both flies and trypanosome parasites. Through livelihoods analysis we explored who makes use of what areas of the landscape and when, identifying the social groups most at risk. We conclude with a discussion of the practical implications, including the need for an integrated 'One Health' approach involving targeted approaches to both vector control and surveillance.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 67 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 24%
Student > Master 10 15%
Researcher 9 13%
Librarian 2 3%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 3%
Other 13 19%
Unknown 15 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 20 30%
Social Sciences 6 9%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 5 7%
Environmental Science 4 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 4%
Other 11 16%
Unknown 18 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 24. 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 05 December 2017.
All research outputs
#1,453,702
of 23,857,313 outputs
Outputs from Human Ecology
#63
of 794 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,907
of 318,858 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Human Ecology
#2
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,857,313 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 794 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 318,858 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
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 done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.