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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
A systematic review of the use of financial incentives and penalties to encourage uptake of healthy behaviors: protocol
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Systematic Reviews, October 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1186/2046-4053-1-51 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jean Adams, Emma L Giles, Shannon Robalino, Elaine McColl, Falko F Sniehotta |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 | 7 | 88% |
| Australia | 1 | 13% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 50% |
| Scientists | 3 | 38% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 13% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 77 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 76 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 14 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 11 | 14% |
| Researcher | 10 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 8% |
| Other | 12 | 16% |
| Unknown | 18 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 18 | 23% |
| Psychology | 10 | 13% |
| Social Sciences | 7 | 9% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 4% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 12 | 16% |
| Unknown | 24 | 31% |
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 31 October 2012.
All research outputs
#6,200,830
of 22,684,168 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#1,169
of 1,982 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#47,094
of 184,188 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#8
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,684,168 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 1,982 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% 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 184,188 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.