| Title |
Women’s intentions to self-collect samples for human papillomavirus testing in an organized cervical cancer screening program
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Public Health, October 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2458-14-1060 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Laurie W Smith, Fareeza Khurshed, Dirk J van Niekerk, Mel Krajden, Sandra B Greene, Suzanne Hobbs, Andrew J Coldman, Eduardo L Franco, Gina S Ogilvie |
| Abstract |
Mounting evidence affirms HPV testing as an effective cervical cancer screening tool, and many organized screening programs are considering adopting it as primary testing. HPV self-collection has comparable sensitivity to clinician collected specimens and is considered a feasible option in hard-to-reach women. We explored women's intentions to HPV self-collect for cervical cancer screening from a cohort participating in a Canadian randomized controlled cervical cancer screening trial. |
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 States | 2 | 33% |
| Canada | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 3 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 67% |
| Scientists | 1 | 17% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 97 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 96 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 19 | 20% |
| Researcher | 8 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 6% |
| Lecturer | 6 | 6% |
| Other | 16 | 16% |
| Unknown | 34 | 35% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 22 | 23% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 17 | 18% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 4% |
| Psychology | 4 | 4% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 8 | 8% |
| Unknown | 40 | 41% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 03 July 2018.
All research outputs
#2,726,581
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#3,096
of 15,466 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#31,183
of 258,103 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#53
of 281 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 15,466 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 258,103 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 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 281 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.