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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Methods for evaluating delivery systems for scaling-up malaria control intervention
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Health Services Research, July 2010
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1472-6963-10-s1-s8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jayne Webster, Daniel Chandramohan, Kara Hanson |
| Abstract |
Despite increased resources over the past few years the coverage of malaria control interventions is still inadequate to reach national and international targets and achieve the full potential of the interventions to improve population health. One of the reasons for this inadequate coverage of efficacious interventions is the limited understanding of the optimum delivery systems of the interventions in different contexts. Although there have been debates about how to deliver interventions, the methods for evaluating the effectiveness of different delivery systems have rarely been discussed. Delivery of interventions is relatively complex and a thorough evaluation would need to look holistically at multiple steps in the delivery process and at multiple factors influencing the process. A better understanding of the strength of the evidence on delivery system effectiveness is needed in order to optimise delivery of efficacious interventions. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 123 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 3 | 2% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Nigeria | 1 | <1% |
| Belgium | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 117 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 36 | 29% |
| Researcher | 19 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 17 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 7% |
| Lecturer | 7 | 6% |
| Other | 23 | 19% |
| Unknown | 12 | 10% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 40 | 33% |
| Social Sciences | 26 | 21% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 12 | 10% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 5% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 4 | 3% |
| Other | 16 | 13% |
| Unknown | 19 | 15% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 26 March 2018.
All research outputs
#7,810,411
of 23,700,294 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#3,855
of 7,913 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#34,542
of 95,757 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#21
of 44 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,700,294 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,913 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.0. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% 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 95,757 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 44 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.