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 |
The Decision to Vaccinate or Not during the H1N1 Pandemic: Selecting the Lesser of Two Evils?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PLOS ONE, March 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1371/journal.pone.0058852 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Andrea R. Ashbaugh, Christophe F. Herbert, Elena Saimon, Nelson Azoulay, Lening Olivera-Figueroa, Alain Brunet |
| Abstract |
With the release of the H1N1 vaccine, there was much controversy surrounding its use despite strong encouragements to be vaccinated in the media. Though studies have examined factors influencing people's decision to be vaccinated, few have focused on how general beliefs about the world or where an individual gathers information might influence that decision. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 | 2 | 33% |
| Canada | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 3 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 33% |
| Scientists | 1 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 107 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Colombia | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| Switzerland | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 103 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 16 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 16 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 16 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 15 | 14% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 9 | 8% |
| Other | 14 | 13% |
| Unknown | 21 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 24 | 22% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 18 | 17% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 7 | 7% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 5% |
| Other | 17 | 16% |
| Unknown | 29 | 27% |
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 23 September 2020.
All research outputs
#6,780,574
of 24,171,551 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#87,531
of 207,801 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#54,016
of 198,133 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#1,654
of 5,403 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,171,551 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 207,801 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% 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 198,133 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 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5,403 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.