↓ Skip to main content

Variation in health care-associated infection surveillance practices in Australia

Overview of attention for article published in American Journal of Infection Control, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
26 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
Variation in health care-associated infection surveillance practices in Australia
Published in
American Journal of Infection Control, April 2015
DOI 10.1016/j.ajic.2015.02.029
Pubmed ID
Authors

Philip L. Russo, Allen C. Cheng, Michael Richards, Nicholas Graves, Lisa Hall

Abstract

In the absence of a national health care-associated infection surveillance program in Australia, differences between existing state-based programs were explored using an online survey. Only 51% of respondents who undertake surveillance have been trained, fewer than half perform surgical site infection surveillance prospectively, and only 41% indicated they risk adjust surgical site infection data. Widespread variation of surveillance methods highlights future challenges when considering the development and implementation of a national program in Australia.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 26 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 3 12%
Researcher 3 12%
Student > Master 3 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 8%
Student > Bachelor 2 8%
Other 6 23%
Unknown 7 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 10 38%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 15%
Psychology 2 8%
Social Sciences 1 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 4%
Other 2 8%
Unknown 6 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 30 March 2017.
All research outputs
#6,847,956
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from American Journal of Infection Control
#1,717
of 4,281 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#75,693
of 279,994 outputs
Outputs of similar age from American Journal of Infection Control
#28
of 88 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,281 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% 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 279,994 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 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 88 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 68% of its contemporaries.