↓ Skip to main content

The impact of information about different absolute benefits and harms on intention to participate in colorectal cancer screening: A think-aloud study and online randomised experiment

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, February 2021
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

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.
Title
The impact of information about different absolute benefits and harms on intention to participate in colorectal cancer screening: A think-aloud study and online randomised experiment
Published in
PLOS ONE, February 2021
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0246991
Pubmed ID
Authors

Juliet A. Usher-Smith, Katie M. Mills, Christiane Riedinger, Catherine L. Saunders, Lise M. Helsingen, Lyubov Lytvyn, Maaike Buskermolen, Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar, Michael Bretthauer, Gordon Guyatt, Simon J. Griffin

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

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.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 24 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 25%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 17%
Student > Master 3 13%
Other 1 4%
Other 3 13%
Unknown 3 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 29%
Social Sciences 3 13%
Psychology 3 13%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 8%
Computer Science 1 4%
Other 3 13%
Unknown 5 21%

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 18 February 2021.
All research outputs
#13,097,556
of 21,030,811 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#103,625
of 179,997 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#173,758
of 312,239 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#272
of 319 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,030,811 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 179,997 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% 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 312,239 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 319 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.