↓ Skip to main content

Modernising epidemic science: enabling patient-centred research during epidemics

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, 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 (92nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
37 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
97 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
Modernising epidemic science: enabling patient-centred research during epidemics
Published in
BMC Medicine, December 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12916-016-0760-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Amanda M. Rojek, Peter W. Horby

Abstract

Emerging and epidemic infectious disease outbreaks are a significant public health problem and global health security threat. As an outbreak begins, epidemiological investigations and traditional public health responses are generally mounted very quickly. However, patient-centred research is usually not prioritised when planning and enacting the response. Instead, the clinical research response occurs subsequent to and separate from the public health response, and is inadequate for evidence-based decision-making at the bedside or in the offices of public health policymakers. The deficiencies of the clinical research response to severe acute respiratory syndrome, pandemic influenza, Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus and Ebola virus demonstrate that current research models do not adequately inform and improve the quality of clinical care or public health response. Three suggestions for improvements are made. First, integrate the data and sample collection needs for clinical and public health decision-making within a unified framework, combined with a risk-based, rather than a discipline-based, approach to ethical review and consent. Second, develop clinical study methods and tools that are specifically designed to meet the epidemiological and contextual challenges of emerging and epidemic infectious diseases. Third, invest in investigator-led clinical research networks that are primed and incentivised to respond to outbreak infections, and which can call on the support and resources of a central centre of excellence. It is crucial that the field of epidemic science matures to place patients at the heart of the response. This can only be achieved when patient-centred research is integrated in the outbreak response from day one and practical steps are taken to reduce the barriers to the generation of reliable and useful evidence.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 37 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 97 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 97 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 23 24%
Student > Master 20 21%
Student > Bachelor 8 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 7%
Other 6 6%
Other 21 22%
Unknown 12 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 31 32%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 6%
Social Sciences 6 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 5%
Other 24 25%
Unknown 17 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 23. 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 29 December 2017.
All research outputs
#941,307
of 16,286,988 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#761
of 2,569 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#30,819
of 388,099 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#61
of 213 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,286,988 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,569 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 38.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 388,099 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 213 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 71% of its contemporaries.