| Title |
The feasibility of cell phone based electronic diaries for STI/HIV research
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Research Methodology, June 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2288-12-75 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Devon J Hensel, James D Fortenberry, Jaroslaw Harezlak, Dorothy Craig |
| Abstract |
Self-reports of sensitive, socially stigmatized or illegal behavior are common in STI/HIV research, but can raise challenges in terms of data reliability and validity. The use of electronic data collection tools, including ecological momentary assessment (EMA), can increase the accuracy of this information by allowing a participant to self-administer a survey or diary entry, in their own environment, as close to the occurrence of the behavior as possible. In this paper, we evaluate the feasibility of using cell phone-based EMA as a tool for understanding sexual risk and STI among adult men and women. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 | 80% |
| Canada | 1 | 20% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 170 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 2% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 166 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 35 | 21% |
| Researcher | 27 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 23 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 12 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 10 | 6% |
| Other | 29 | 17% |
| Unknown | 34 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 36 | 21% |
| Psychology | 23 | 14% |
| Social Sciences | 23 | 14% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 14 | 8% |
| Computer Science | 6 | 4% |
| Other | 25 | 15% |
| Unknown | 43 | 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 15 January 2013.
All research outputs
#12,565,593
of 22,668,244 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1,138
of 2,000 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#88,189
of 167,155 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#11
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,668,244 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,000 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% 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 167,155 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 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 57% of its contemporaries.