| Title |
The efficacy of PPE for COVID-19-type respiratory illnesses in primary and community care staff
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
British Journal of General Practice, July 2020
|
| DOI | 10.3399/bjgp20x710969 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Kamlesh Khunti, Anil Adisesh, Christopher Burton, Xin Hui S Chan, Briana Coles, Quentin Durand-Moreau, Tanya Jackson, Lawrence Ross, Sebastian Straube, Elaine Toomey, Trisha Greenhalgh |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 70 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 | 16 | 23% |
| Ireland | 4 | 6% |
| United States | 4 | 6% |
| Zimbabwe | 2 | 3% |
| Spain | 2 | 3% |
| Canada | 2 | 3% |
| Germany | 1 | 1% |
| Romania | 1 | 1% |
| Greece | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 7 | 10% |
| Unknown | 30 | 43% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 37 | 53% |
| Scientists | 15 | 21% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 13 | 19% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 5 | 7% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 92 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 92 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 18 | 20% |
| Student > Master | 13 | 14% |
| Researcher | 10 | 11% |
| Other | 8 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 5% |
| Other | 12 | 13% |
| Unknown | 26 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 27 | 29% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 15 | 16% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 5% |
| Neuroscience | 3 | 3% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 13 | 14% |
| Unknown | 27 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 41. 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 30 November 2023.
All research outputs
#1,022,364
of 25,708,267 outputs
Outputs from British Journal of General Practice
#450
of 4,926 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,648
of 431,318 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Journal of General Practice
#13
of 114 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,708,267 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,926 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 431,318 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 114 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.