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 |
Conservation Values and Risk of Handling Bats: Implications for One Health Communication
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
EcoHealth, August 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10393-018-1356-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
C. N. Crockford, A. J. Dean, S. Reid, J. H. Dean |
| Abstract |
Flying-foxes provide critical ecosystem services, but their role as hosts to zoonotic pathogens may undermine conservation support. We surveyed 214 residents of Cairns, Australia, regarding their perceptions about health risks associated with flying-foxes and support for flying-fox conservation. Greater likelihood of handling a flying-fox was associated with lower knowledge about risks, greater conservation support, and environmental organization membership. Respondents less likely to seek medical attention after a minor scratch tended to be younger, unemployed and perceive lower risk. Individuals who support flying-fox conservation should be one group targeted in One Health communication integrating health and conservation messages. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 40 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 7 | 18% |
| Researcher | 5 | 13% |
| Librarian | 4 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 6 | 15% |
| Unknown | 11 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 8 | 20% |
| Environmental Science | 6 | 15% |
| Computer Science | 5 | 13% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 8% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 6 | 15% |
| Unknown | 10 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 09 August 2018.
All research outputs
#20,529,980
of 23,099,576 outputs
Outputs from EcoHealth
#659
of 711 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#288,657
of 330,798 outputs
Outputs of similar age from EcoHealth
#18
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,099,576 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 711 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.7. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 330,798 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.