↓ Skip to main content

Online surveillance of media health event reporting in Nepal: digital disease detection from a One Health perspective

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
75 Mendeley
Title
Online surveillance of media health event reporting in Nepal: digital disease detection from a One Health perspective
Published in
BMC Public Health, September 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12914-017-0134-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jessica S. Schwind, Stephanie A. Norman, Dibesh Karmacharya, David J. Wolking, Sameer M. Dixit, Rajesh M. Rajbhandari, Sumiko R. Mekaru, John S. Brownstein

Abstract

Traditional media and the internet are crucial sources of health information. Media can significantly shape public opinion, knowledge and understanding of emerging and endemic health threats. As digital communication rapidly progresses, local access and dissemination of health information contribute significantly to global disease detection and reporting. Health event reports in Nepal (October 2013-December 2014) were used to characterize Nepal's media environment from a One Health perspective using HealthMap - a global online disease surveillance and mapping tool. Event variables (location, media source type, disease or risk factor of interest, and affected species) were extracted from HealthMap. A total of 179 health reports were captured from various sources including newspapers, inter-government agency bulletins, individual reports, and trade websites, yielding 108 (60%) unique articles. Human health events were reported most often (n = 85; 79%), followed by animal health events (n = 23; 21%), with no reports focused solely on environmental health. By expanding event coverage across all of the health sectors, media in developing countries could play a crucial role in national risk communication efforts and could enhance early warning systems for disasters and disease outbreaks.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 75 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 75 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 17%
Student > Master 11 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 8%
Student > Bachelor 6 8%
Student > Postgraduate 3 4%
Other 12 16%
Unknown 24 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 10 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 11%
Computer Science 8 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 4%
Other 15 20%
Unknown 23 31%
Attention Score in Context

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 12 December 2017.
All research outputs
#22,764,772
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#16,441
of 17,517 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#286,455
of 325,640 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#141
of 150 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 17,517 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.4. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 325,640 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 150 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.