↓ Skip to main content

Use of a Modified Cluster Sampling Method to Perform Rapid Needs Assessment After Hurricane Andrew

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Emergency Medicine, April 1994
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

policy
2 policy sources

Readers on

mendeley
34 Mendeley
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.
Article details
Title
Use of a Modified Cluster Sampling Method to Perform Rapid Needs Assessment After Hurricane Andrew
Published in
Annals of Emergency Medicine, April 1994
DOI 10.1016/s0196-0644(94)70305-1
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

To rapidly obtain population-based estimates of needs in the early aftermath of Hurricane Andrew in South Florida. We used a modified cluster-sampling method (the Expanded Programme on Immunization [EPI] method) for three surveys. We selected a systematic sample of 30 quarter-mile square clusters for each survey and, beginning from a random start, interviewed members of seven consecutive occupied households in each cluster. Two surveys were of the most affected area (1990 population, 32,672) at three and ten days after the hurricane struck; one survey was of a less affected area (1990 population, 15,576) seven days after the hurricane struck. Results were available within 24 hours of beginning each survey. Initial findings emphasized the need for restoring utilities and sanitation and helped to focus medical relief on primary care and preventive services. The second survey of the most affected area showed improvement in the availability of food, water, electricity, and sanitation (P < or = .05). There was no evidence of disease outbreaks. For the first time, the EPI method provided population-based information to guide and evaluate relief operations after a sudden-impact natural disaster. An improvement over previous approaches, the EPI method warrants further evaluation as a needs assessment tool in acute disasters.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
United States 1 3%
Germany 1 3%
Canada 1 3%
Belgium 1 3%
Unknown 30 88%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 15%
Student > Bachelor 4 12%
Researcher 4 12%
Librarian 1 3%
Other 5 15%
Unknown 7 21%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 24%
Social Sciences 5 15%
Psychology 3 9%
Environmental Science 2 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 6%
Other 7 21%
Unknown 7 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 January 2014.
All research outputs
#6,086,705
of 27,777,630 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Emergency Medicine
#3,134
of 7,700 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,633
of 24,931 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Emergency Medicine
#11
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 27,777,630 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,700 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% 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 24,931 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 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.