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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Relevance of workplace social mixing during influenza pandemics: an experimental modelling study of workplace cultures
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Epidemiology & Infection, February 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1017/s0950268816000169 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
T. TIMPKA, H. ERIKSSON, E. HOLM, M. STRÖMGREN, J. EKBERG, A. SPRECO, Ö. DAHLSTRÖM |
| Abstract |
Workplaces are one of the most important regular meeting places in society. The aim of this study was to use simulation experiments to examine the impact of different workplace cultures on influenza dissemination during pandemics. The impact is investigated by experiments with defined social-mixing patterns at workplaces using semi-virtual models based on authentic sociodemographic and geographical data from a North European community (population 136 000). A simulated pandemic outbreak was found to affect 33% of the total population in the community with the reference academic-creative workplace culture; virus transmission at the workplace accounted for 10·6% of the cases. A model with a prevailing industrial-administrative workplace culture generated 11% lower incidence than the reference model, while the model with a self-employed workplace culture (also corresponding to a hypothetical scenario with all workplaces closed) produced 20% fewer cases. The model representing an academic-creative workplace culture with restricted workplace interaction generated 12% lower cumulative incidence compared to the reference model. The results display important theoretical associations between workplace social-mixing cultures and community-level incidence rates during influenza pandemics. Social interaction patterns at workplaces should be taken into consideration when analysing virus transmission patterns during influenza pandemics. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 24 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 5 | 20% |
| Professor | 3 | 12% |
| Researcher | 3 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 8% |
| Other | 4 | 16% |
| Unknown | 5 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 20% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 12% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 8% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 2 | 8% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 4 | 16% |
| Unknown | 8 | 32% |
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 24 October 2019.
All research outputs
#8,262,981
of 25,377,790 outputs
Outputs from Epidemiology & Infection
#1,671
of 4,680 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#126,091
of 406,037 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Epidemiology & Infection
#17
of 52 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,377,790 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 66th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,680 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% 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 406,037 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 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 52 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 65% of its contemporaries.