| Title |
Ermöglichen Medienberichte und Broschüren informierte Entscheidungen zur Gebärmutterhalskrebsprävention?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Bundesgesundheitsblatt - Gesundheitsforschung - Gesundheitsschutz, October 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00103-011-1347-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
A. Neumeyer-Gromen, N. Bodemer, S.M. Müller, G. Gigerenzer |
| Abstract |
With the introduction and recommendation of the new HPV (human papillomavirus) vaccination in 2007, cervical cancer prevention has evoked large public interest. Is the public able to make informed decisions on the basis of media reports and brochures? To answer this question, an analysis of media coverage of HPV vaccination (Gardasil®) and Pap (Papanicolaou) screening was conducted from 2007-2009, which investigated the minimum requirement of completeness (pros and cons), transparency (absolute numbers), and correctness (references concerning outcome, uncertainty, magnitude) of the information. As a bench mark, facts boxes with concise data on epidemiology, etiology, benefits, harms, and costs were compiled in advance. Although all vaccination reports and brochures covered the impact of prevention, only 41% provided concrete numbers on effectiveness (90/220) and 2% on absolute risk reductions for the cancer surrogate dysplasia (5/220), whereby none of the latter numbers was correct. The prevention potential was correctly presented once. Only 48% (105/220) mentioned pros and cons. With regard to screening, 20% (4/20) provided explicit data on test quality and one expressed these in absolute numbers, while 25% (5/20) reported the prevention potential; all given numbers were correct. Finally, 25% (5/20) mentioned the possibility of false positive results. Minimum requirements were fulfilled by 1/220 vaccination and 1/20 screening reports. At present, informed decision making based on media coverage is hardly possible. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 4 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 25 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 8% |
| Lecturer > Senior Lecturer | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 1 | 4% |
| Professor | 1 | 4% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 18 | 72% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 16% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 4% |
| Psychology | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 19 | 76% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 25 October 2011.
All research outputs
#6,375,523
of 22,655,397 outputs
Outputs from Bundesgesundheitsblatt - Gesundheitsforschung - Gesundheitsschutz
#286
of 918 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#38,770
of 139,896 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Bundesgesundheitsblatt - Gesundheitsforschung - Gesundheitsschutz
#2
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,655,397 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 918 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% 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 139,896 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 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.