| Title |
Knowledge of causes, clinical features and diagnosis of common zoonoses among medical practitioners in Tanzania
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Infectious Diseases, December 2008
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2334-8-162 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Kunda John, Rudovic Kazwala, Godfrey S Mfinanga |
| Abstract |
Many factors have been mentioned as contributing to under-diagnosis and under-reporting of zoonotic diseases particularly in the sub-Sahara African region. These include poor disease surveillance coverage, poor diagnostic capacity, the geographical distribution of those most affected and lack of clear strategies to address the plight of zoonotic diseases. The current study investigates the knowledge of medical practitioners of zoonotic diseases as a potential contributing factor to their under-diagnosis and hence under-reporting. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 207 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Kenya | 4 | 2% |
| United States | 3 | 1% |
| Tanzania, United Republic of | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Oman | 1 | <1% |
| Nigeria | 1 | <1% |
| Uzbekistan | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 193 | 93% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 41 | 20% |
| Researcher | 34 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 24 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 19 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 12 | 6% |
| Other | 35 | 17% |
| Unknown | 42 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 49 | 24% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 43 | 21% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 15 | 7% |
| Environmental Science | 10 | 5% |
| Social Sciences | 7 | 3% |
| Other | 32 | 15% |
| Unknown | 51 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 July 2016.
All research outputs
#7,454,298
of 22,789,076 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#2,538
of 7,672 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#47,660
of 166,227 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#3
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,789,076 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,672 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% 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 166,227 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.