| Title |
Communication about environmental health risks: A systematic review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Environmental Health, November 2010
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1476-069x-9-67 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Donna Fitzpatrick-Lewis, Jennifer Yost, Donna Ciliska, Shari Krishnaratne |
| Abstract |
Using the most effective methods and techniques for communicating risk to the public is critical. Understanding the impact that different types of risk communication have played in real and perceived public health risks can provide information about how messages, policies and programs can and should be communicated in order to be most effective. The purpose of this systematic review is to identify the effectiveness of communication strategies and factors that impact communication uptake related to environmental health risks. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 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 193 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 1% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| United Arab Emirates | 1 | <1% |
| Malaysia | 1 | <1% |
| Portugal | 1 | <1% |
| Italy | 1 | <1% |
| Chile | 1 | <1% |
| Nigeria | 1 | <1% |
| Mexico | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 183 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 41 | 21% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 34 | 18% |
| Researcher | 21 | 11% |
| Other | 9 | 5% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 9 | 5% |
| Other | 36 | 19% |
| Unknown | 43 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 30 | 16% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 24 | 12% |
| Environmental Science | 16 | 8% |
| Psychology | 15 | 8% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 10 | 5% |
| Other | 43 | 22% |
| Unknown | 55 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 13 November 2017.
All research outputs
#6,407,710
of 22,765,347 outputs
Outputs from Environmental Health
#734
of 1,488 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#31,449
of 100,285 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Environmental Health
#8
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,765,347 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,488 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 31.3. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% 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 100,285 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.