↓ Skip to main content
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
35 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
A prospective observational study of machine translation software to overcome the challenge of including ethnic diversity in healthcare research
Published in
Nursing Open, January 2015
DOI 10.1002/nop2.13
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

This study investigates whether machine translation could help with the challenge of enabling the inclusion of ethnic diversity in healthcare research. A two phase, prospective observational study. Two machine translators, Google Translate and Babylon 9, were tested. Translation of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) from 24 languages into English and translation of an English information sheet into Spanish and Chinese were quality scored. Quality was assessed using the Translation Assessment Quality Tool. Only six of the 48 translations of the SDQ were rated as acceptable, all from Google Translate. The mean number of acceptably translated sentences was higher (P = 0·001) for Google Translate 17·1 (sd 7·2) than for Babylon 9 11 (sd 7·9). Translation by Google Translate was better for Spanish and Chinese, although no score was in the acceptable range. Machine translation is not currently sufficiently accurate without editing to provide translation of materials for use in healthcare research.

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 5 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 35 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 %
Unknown 35 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 4 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 11%
Student > Master 4 11%
Other 3 9%
Researcher 2 6%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 15 43%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 4 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 11%
Linguistics 3 9%
Social Sciences 3 9%
Computer Science 2 6%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 15 43%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 25 March 2015.
All research outputs
#7,002,017
of 25,394,764 outputs
Outputs from Nursing Open
#222
of 857 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#88,259
of 361,787 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nursing Open
#1
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,394,764 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 857 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 361,787 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 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them