The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 44 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
| Title |
Celebrities’ impact on health-related knowledge, attitudes, behaviors, and status outcomes: protocol for a systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Systematic Reviews, January 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13643-016-0395-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Steven J. Hoffman, Yasmeen Mansoor, Navneet Natt, Lathika Sritharan, Julia Belluz, Timothy Caulfield, Yoni Freedhoff, John N. Lavis, Arya M. Sharma |
| Abstract |
Celebrities are highly influential people whose actions and decisions are watched and often emulated by wide audiences. Many celebrities have used their prominent social standing to offer medical advice or endorse health products, a trend that is expected to increase. However, the extent of the impact that celebrities have in shaping the public's health-related knowledge, attitudes, behaviors, and status is unclear. This systematic review seeks to answer the following questions: (1) Which health-related outcomes are influenced by celebrities? (2) How large of an impact do celebrities actually have on these health-related outcomes? (3) Under what circumstances do celebrities produce either beneficial or harmful impacts? Ten databases were searched, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, PubMed, CINAHL, Communication Complete, Sociological Abstracts, Social Sciences Citation Index, Journals @ Scholars Portal, and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses A&I. Two reviewers conducted title and abstract screening and full-text screening to identify primary studies that employed empirical methods (either quantitative or qualitative) to examine celebrities' impact on health-related knowledge, attitudes, behaviors, or status outcomes. The results of this review will contribute to our understanding of celebrity influences and how to design positive evidence-based celebrity health promotion activities. In addition, these findings can help inform the development of media reporting guidelines pertaining to celebrity health news and provide guidance to public health authorities on whether and how to respond to or work with celebrities. PROSPERO CRD42015019268. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 15 | 34% |
| United Kingdom | 7 | 16% |
| United States | 4 | 9% |
| Australia | 4 | 9% |
| Ireland | 3 | 7% |
| Poland | 1 | 2% |
| Cabo Verde | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 9 | 20% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 27 | 61% |
| Scientists | 7 | 16% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 6 | 14% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 4 | 9% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 225 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 224 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 37 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 27 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 22 | 10% |
| Researcher | 17 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 12 | 5% |
| Other | 36 | 16% |
| Unknown | 74 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 34 | 15% |
| Social Sciences | 24 | 11% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 22 | 10% |
| Psychology | 15 | 7% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 13 | 6% |
| Other | 38 | 17% |
| Unknown | 79 | 35% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 301. 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 16 July 2024.
All research outputs
#122,385
of 26,482,830 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#11
of 2,298 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,743
of 428,231 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#1
of 41 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,482,830 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,298 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 428,231 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 41 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.