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 |
Ethical aspects of directly observed treatment for tuberculosis: a cross-cultural comparison
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Ethics, July 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1472-6939-14-25 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Mette Sagbakken, Jan C Frich, Gunnar A Bjune, John DH Porter |
| Abstract |
Tuberculosis is a major global public health challenge, and a majority of countries have adopted a version of the global strategy to fight Tuberculosis, Directly Observed Treatment, Short Course (DOTS). Drawing on results from research in Ethiopia and Norway, the aim of this paper is to highlight and discuss ethical aspects of the practice of Directly Observed Treatment (DOT) in a cross-cultural perspective. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 25% |
| United States | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 2 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 75% |
| Scientists | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 172 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Sierra Leone | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| India | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 169 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 28 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 25 | 15% |
| Researcher | 21 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 14 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 11 | 6% |
| Other | 32 | 19% |
| Unknown | 41 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 54 | 31% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 21 | 12% |
| Social Sciences | 13 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 10 | 6% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 3% |
| Other | 27 | 16% |
| Unknown | 42 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 08 December 2014.
All research outputs
#3,181,516
of 22,714,025 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#343
of 991 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,340
of 194,347 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#5
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,714,025 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 991 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% 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 194,347 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 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 54% of its contemporaries.