| Title |
The Psychological Harms of Screening: the Evidence We Have Versus the Evidence We Need
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of General Internal Medicine, August 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11606-014-2996-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jessica T. DeFrank, Colleen Barclay, Stacey Sheridan, Noel T. Brewer, Meredith Gilliam, Andrew M. Moon, William Rearick, Carolyn Ziemer, Russell Harris |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 Kingdom | 2 | 33% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 17% |
| United States | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 2 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 2 | 33% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 33% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 17% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 65 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 2% |
| Estonia | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 63 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 10 | 15% |
| Researcher | 9 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 11% |
| Professor | 5 | 8% |
| Other | 15 | 23% |
| Unknown | 12 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 20 | 31% |
| Psychology | 5 | 8% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 6% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 10 | 15% |
| Unknown | 21 | 32% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 20 April 2023.
All research outputs
#3,375,013
of 25,837,817 outputs
Outputs from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#2,357
of 8,256 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,223
of 248,971 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#31
of 100 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,837,817 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,256 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% 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 248,971 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 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 100 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 69% of its contemporaries.