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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
The characteristics, implementation and effects of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health promotion tools: a systematic literature search
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Public Health, July 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2458-14-712 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Janya McCalman, Komla Tsey, Roxanne Bainbridge, Kevin Rowley, Nikki Percival, Lynette O’Donoghue, Jenny Brands, Mary Whiteside, Jenni Judd |
| Abstract |
Health promotion by and with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander (hereafter Indigenous) Australians is critically important given a wide gap in health parity compared to other Australians. The development and implementation of step-by-step guides, instruments, packages, frameworks or resources has provided a feasible and low-resource strategy for strengthening evidence-informed health promotion practice. Yet there has been little assessment of where and how these tools are implemented or their effectiveness. This paper reviews the characteristics, implementation and effects of Indigenous health promotion tools. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 6 | 43% |
| Zimbabwe | 1 | 7% |
| Lao People's Democratic Republic | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 6 | 43% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 9 | 64% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 14% |
| Scientists | 2 | 14% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 7% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 91 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
| Australia | 1 | 1% |
| Canada | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 88 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 17 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 15 | 16% |
| Researcher | 10 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 5 | 5% |
| Other | 13 | 14% |
| Unknown | 23 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 16 | 18% |
| Social Sciences | 15 | 16% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 14% |
| Psychology | 4 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 15 | 16% |
| Unknown | 25 | 27% |
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 04 September 2014.
All research outputs
#3,693,942
of 23,298,349 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#4,017
of 15,187 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#36,238
of 227,661 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#83
of 292 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,298,349 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 15,187 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 227,661 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 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 292 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.