↓ Skip to main content

A Dichotomy of Information-Seeking and Information-Trusting: Stem Cell Interventions and Children with Neurodevelopmental Disorders

Overview of attention for article published in Stem Cell Reviews and Reports, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (64th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (61st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
107 Mendeley
Title
A Dichotomy of Information-Seeking and Information-Trusting: Stem Cell Interventions and Children with Neurodevelopmental Disorders
Published in
Stem Cell Reviews and Reports, June 2016
DOI 10.1007/s12015-016-9667-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kimberly Sharpe, Nina Di Pietro, Karen J. Jacob, Judy Illes

Abstract

Parents and primary caregivers of children with Cerebral Palsy (CP) and Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) are faced with difficult treatment choices and management options for their children. The potential of stem cell technologies as an interventional strategy for CP and ASD has gained attention in the last decade. Information about these interventions varies in quality, resulting in a complex landscape for parent decision making for a child's care. Further complicating this landscape are clinics that advertise these interventions as a legitimate treatment for a fee. In this study, we surveyed individuals who considered taking their child with ASD or CP abroad for stem cell interventions on their use of different sources of stem cell related health information and their level of trust in these sources. Participants reported that while the Internet was their most frequent source of information, it was not well-trusted. Rather, information sources trusted most were researchers and the science journals in which they publish, other parents of children with CP and ASD, and healthcare providers. These findings highlight a dichotomy between information-seeking preferences and information-trusted sources. We discuss the challenges of health science communication and present innovative opportunities to increase communication with trusted and reliable sources as part of an integrated multi-pronged approach.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 107 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 107 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 19%
Student > Master 14 13%
Researcher 13 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 9%
Student > Bachelor 10 9%
Other 20 19%
Unknown 20 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 20 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 14 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 9%
Psychology 9 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 6%
Other 19 18%
Unknown 29 27%
Attention Score in Context

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 14 July 2016.
All research outputs
#8,371,230
of 25,654,806 outputs
Outputs from Stem Cell Reviews and Reports
#389
of 1,051 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#126,265
of 360,973 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Stem Cell Reviews and Reports
#7
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,654,806 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 1,051 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% 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 360,973 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 64% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 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 61% of its contemporaries.