| Title |
Mobile phones are a viable option for surveying young Australian women: a comparison of two telephone survey methods
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Research Methodology, November 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2288-11-159 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Bette Liu, Julia ML Brotherton, David Shellard, Basil Donovan, Marion Saville, John M Kaldor |
| Abstract |
Households with fixed-line telephones have decreased while mobile (cell) phone ownership has increased. We therefore sought to examine the feasibility of recruiting young women for a national health survey through random digit dialling mobile phones. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 4 | 57% |
| Spain | 2 | 29% |
| Unknown | 1 | 14% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 71% |
| Scientists | 1 | 14% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 14% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 60 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 60 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 13% |
| Researcher | 7 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 8% |
| Other | 13 | 22% |
| Unknown | 11 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 22% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 12% |
| Social Sciences | 6 | 10% |
| Computer Science | 4 | 7% |
| Psychology | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 12 | 20% |
| Unknown | 15 | 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 20 April 2012.
All research outputs
#13,023,713
of 23,298,349 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1,195
of 2,056 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#144,413
of 242,175 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#13
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,298,349 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,056 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.3. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% 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 242,175 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 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 50% of its contemporaries.