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 |
Non-participation in chlamydia screening in the Netherlands: determinants associated with young people’s intention to participate in chlamydia screening
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Public Health, November 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2458-13-1091 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Gill A ten Hoor, Robert AC Ruiter, Jan EAM van Bergen, Christian JPA Hoebe, Katrijn Houben, Gerjo Kok |
| Abstract |
In The Netherlands, a national chlamydia screening program started in 2008, but the participation was low and the screening was not cost-effective. This study aimed to explore unconscious and conscious associations with chlamydia screening (16-29 year-olds). In addition, we examined whether information presented in chlamydia screening invitation letters had an effect on the evaluation of these determinants compared to a no-letter group. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 States | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 58 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 58 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 7 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 10% |
| Researcher | 6 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 12 | 21% |
| Unknown | 16 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 19% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 9 | 16% |
| Psychology | 7 | 12% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 7 | 12% |
| Unknown | 19 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 10 December 2013.
All research outputs
#16,099,609
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#11,766
of 15,466 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#194,714
of 307,876 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#199
of 247 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 15,466 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.3. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% 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 307,876 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 247 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.