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 |
Within a smoking-cessation program, what impact does genetic information on lung cancer need to have to demonstrate cost-effectiveness?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation, September 2010
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1478-7547-8-18 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Louisa G Gordon, Nicholas G Hirst, Robert P Young, Paul M Brown |
| Abstract |
Many smoking-cessation programs and pharmaceutical aids demonstrate substantial health gains for a relatively low allocation of resources. Genetic information represents a type of individualized or personal feedback regarding the risk of developing lung cancer, and hence the potential benefits from stopping smoking, may motivate the person to remain smoke-free. The purpose of this study was to explore what the impact of a genetic test needs to have within a typical smoking-cessation program aimed at heavy smokers in order to be cost-effective. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 61 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 60 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 13 | 21% |
| Researcher | 8 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 7% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 11 | 18% |
| Unknown | 14 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 17 | 28% |
| Social Sciences | 7 | 11% |
| Psychology | 7 | 11% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 4 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 5 | 8% |
| Unknown | 18 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 17 June 2013.
All research outputs
#4,150,542
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation
#97
of 532 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,881
of 98,637 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 532 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 98,637 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them