↓ Skip to main content

健康食品の利用が関連した被害通報の実態調査―消費者および医師・薬剤師を対象としたインターネット調査―

Overview of attention for article published in Shokuhin eiseigaku zasshi Journal of the Food Hygienic Society of Japan, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (56th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
16 Mendeley
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.
Title
健康食品の利用が関連した被害通報の実態調査―消費者および医師・薬剤師を対象としたインターネット調査―
Published in
Shokuhin eiseigaku zasshi Journal of the Food Hygienic Society of Japan, January 2017
DOI 10.3358/shokueishi.58.234
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tsuyoshi Chiba, Etsuko Kobayashi, Yoko Sato, Kazuki Ide, Ryo Iketani, Hiroshi Yamada, Keizo Umegaki

Abstract

Adverse events associated with health food use appear to be quite common. Nevertheless, even though severe adverse events should be reported to the Japanese government via public health centers, the number of cases reported is relatively small. To clarify this discrepancy and to understand how consumers and physicians act when they or their patients develop adverse events due to health food use, we conducted an internet questionnaire with consumers (preliminary survey: n=44,649; full survey: n=3,000), physicians (n=500), and pharmacists (n=500). During 2016, 17% of consumers who used health foods developed adverse events. However, only 11% of them reported their adverse events to public health centers. Most physicians and pharmacists did not report these cases to public health centers because they were unable to establish a clear cause-and-effect relationship. It is important to encourage not only consumers, but also physicians and pharmacists to report adverse events to public health centers.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 16 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 25%
Other 2 13%
Student > Master 2 13%
Student > Bachelor 1 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 6%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 6 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 4 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 13%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 6%
Social Sciences 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Unknown 6 38%
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 26 June 2018.
All research outputs
#19,951,180
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Shokuhin eiseigaku zasshi Journal of the Food Hygienic Society of Japan
#357
of 521 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#304,538
of 421,709 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Shokuhin eiseigaku zasshi Journal of the Food Hygienic Society of Japan
#7
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 521 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.6. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% 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 421,709 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 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 56% of its contemporaries.