↓ Skip to main content

Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices (KAP) Relating to Avian Influenza (H10N8) among Farmers’ Markets Workers in Nanchang, China

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
56 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
Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices (KAP) Relating to Avian Influenza (H10N8) among Farmers’ Markets Workers in Nanchang, China
Published in
PLOS ONE, May 2015
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0127120
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shengen Chen, Zifen Li, Maohong Hu, Shuangli Guo, Jingwen Wu, Bin Wang, Wei Hu, Yanshuang Sun, Hui Li, Mingbin Liu, Justin B. Moore, Haiying Chen

Abstract

Three cases of avian influenza virus H10N8 were reported in Nanchang, China, as of April 2014. To identify the knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) related to H10N8 among farmers' market workers, a cross-sectional survey was conducted in 63 farmers' markets in Nanchang. Using the resulting data, characteristics of poultry and non-poultry workers' knowledge, attitudes, and practice were described. Results suggest that interventions targeting high-risk workers should be developed and implemented by public health agencies to prevent the spread of H10N8. Additionally policies that encourage farmers' market workers to receive influenza vaccine should be developed, adopted, and enforced.

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 56 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 56 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 14%
Student > Master 7 13%
Researcher 5 9%
Student > Bachelor 5 9%
Student > Postgraduate 4 7%
Other 14 25%
Unknown 13 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 9%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 4 7%
Social Sciences 3 5%
Other 13 23%
Unknown 17 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 06 July 2015.
All research outputs
#14,812,046
of 22,805,349 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#123,842
of 194,654 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#147,152
of 265,512 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#3,919
of 6,816 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,805,349 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 194,654 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.1. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% 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 265,512 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6,816 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.