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 |
Perceived pros and cons of smoking and quitting in hard-core smokers: a focus group study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Public Health, February 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2458-14-175 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jeroen Bommelé, Tim M Schoenmakers, Marloes Kleinjan, Barbara van Straaten, Elske Wits, Michelle Snelleman, Dike van de Mheen |
| Abstract |
In the last decade, so-called hard-core smokers have received increasing interest in research literature. For smokers in general, the study of perceived costs and benefits (or 'pros and cons') of smoking and quitting is of particular importance in predicting motivation to quit and actual quitting attempts. Therefore, this study aims to gain insight into the perceived pros and cons of smoking and quitting in hard-core smokers. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 | 5 | 50% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 10% |
| Ireland | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 3 | 30% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 60% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 30% |
| Scientists | 1 | 10% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 62 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 2 | 3% |
| Belgium | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 59 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 15 | 24% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 16% |
| Other | 5 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 6% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 8 | 13% |
| Unknown | 16 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 15 | 24% |
| Social Sciences | 10 | 16% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 15% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 3% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 6 | 10% |
| Unknown | 19 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 24 April 2014.
All research outputs
#5,619,100
of 23,511,526 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#5,470
of 15,248 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#52,138
of 225,327 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#90
of 269 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,511,526 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 15,248 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% 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 225,327 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 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 269 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 66% of its contemporaries.