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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Study Protocol for the Fukushima Health Management Survey
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Epidemiology, August 2012
|
| DOI | 10.2188/jea.je20120105 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Seiji Yasumura, Mitsuaki Hosoya, Shunichi Yamashita, Kenji Kamiya, Masafumi Abe, Makoto Akashi, Kazunori Kodama, Kotaro Ozasa |
| Abstract |
The accidents that occurred at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant after the Great East Japan Earthquake on 11 March 2011 have resulted in long-term, ongoing anxiety among the residents of Fukushima, Japan. Soon after the disaster, Fukushima Prefecture launched the Fukushima Health Management Survey to investigate long-term low-dose radiation exposure caused by the accident. Fukushima Medical University took the lead in planning and implementing this survey. The primary purposes of this survey are to monitor the long-term health of residents, promote their future well-being, and confirm whether long-term low-dose radiation exposure has health effects. This report describes the rationale and implementation of the Fukushima Health Management Survey. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 33 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Japan | 13 | 39% |
| United States | 2 | 6% |
| Paraguay | 1 | 3% |
| Korea, Republic of | 1 | 3% |
| Denmark | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 15 | 45% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 32 | 97% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 152 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 2 | 1% |
| India | 1 | <1% |
| Turkey | 1 | <1% |
| Switzerland | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 147 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 25 | 16% |
| Researcher | 21 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 14 | 9% |
| Other | 13 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 8% |
| Other | 37 | 24% |
| Unknown | 30 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 34 | 22% |
| Social Sciences | 14 | 9% |
| Psychology | 11 | 7% |
| Environmental Science | 9 | 6% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 4% |
| Other | 38 | 25% |
| Unknown | 40 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 29. 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 01 September 2020.
All research outputs
#1,363,989
of 25,455,127 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Epidemiology
#71
of 918 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,996
of 187,003 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Epidemiology
#2
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,455,127 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 918 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 187,003 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.