↓ Skip to main content

Applied epidemiology and public health: are we training the future generations appropriately?

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Epidemiology, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
26 X users
facebook
5 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
117 Mendeley
Title
Applied epidemiology and public health: are we training the future generations appropriately?
Published in
Annals of Epidemiology, December 2016
DOI 10.1016/j.annepidem.2016.12.002
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ross C. Brownson, Jonathan M. Samet, Diana M. Bensyl

Abstract

To extend the reach and relevance of epidemiology for public health practice, the science needs be broadened beyond etiologic research, to link more strongly with emerging technologies and to acknowledge key societal transformations. This new focus for epidemiology and its implications for epidemiologic training can be considered in the context of macro trends affecting society, including a greater focus on upstream causes of disease, shifting demographics, the Affordable Care Act and health care system reform, globalization, changing health communication environment, growing centrality of team and transdisciplinary science, emergence of translational sciences, greater focus on accountability, big data, informatics, high-throughput technologies ("omics"), privacy changes, and the evolving funding environment. This commentary describes existing approaches to and competencies for training in epidemiology, maps macro trends with competencies, highlights an example of competency-based education in the Epidemic Intelligence Service of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and suggests expanded and more dynamic training approaches. A reexamination of current approaches to epidemiologic training is needed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 26 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 117 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Unknown 114 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 17 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 12%
Researcher 12 10%
Student > Bachelor 8 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 6%
Other 21 18%
Unknown 38 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 15%
Social Sciences 14 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 4%
Computer Science 4 3%
Other 19 16%
Unknown 47 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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 07 April 2022.
All research outputs
#2,054,408
of 25,775,807 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Epidemiology
#253
of 2,047 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,254
of 422,623 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Epidemiology
#2
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,775,807 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,047 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 done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 422,623 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.