↓ Skip to main content

Participation in universal prevention programmes

Overview of attention for article published in Applied Economics, February 2011
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Readers on

mendeley
24 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
Participation in universal prevention programmes
Published in
Applied Economics, February 2011
DOI 10.1080/00036846.2010.502111
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

We analyze family decisions to participate in community-based universal substance-abuse prevention programs through the framework of expected utility theory. Family functioning, which has been shown to be a good indicator of child risk for substance abuse, provides a useful reference point for family decision making. Our results show that well-functioning families (with children at low risk for substance use) should have the lowest incentive to participate, but that high-risk families may also opt out of prevention programs. For programs that are most effective for high-risk youth, this could be a problem. Using data from the Strengthening Families Program and the Washington Healthy Youth Survey, we empirically test the implications of our model and find that at least for one measure of family functioning those families with children most likely to be at risk for substance use are opting out of the program.

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.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
New Zealand 1 4%
Colombia 1 4%
Unknown 22 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 5 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 17%
Researcher 4 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 13%
Student > Master 3 13%
Other 4 17%
Unknown 1 4%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 8 33%
Social Sciences 6 25%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 8%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 8%
Other 2 8%
Unknown 2 8%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 20 August 2013.
All research outputs
#17,455,954
of 26,367,306 outputs
Outputs from Applied Economics
#1,737
of 2,293 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#96,841
of 121,849 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Applied Economics
#24
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,367,306 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,293 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.3. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% 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 121,849 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.