↓ Skip to main content

Gender differences in prevalence and associations for use of CAM in a large population study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine, December 2014
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 (89th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
4 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
34 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
29 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
Gender differences in prevalence and associations for use of CAM in a large population study
Published in
BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine, December 2014
DOI 10.1186/1472-6882-14-463
Pubmed ID
Authors

Agnete E Kristoffersen, Trine Stub, Anita Salamonsen, Frauke Musial, Katarina Hamberg

Abstract

Self-reported use of Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) varies widely from 10% to 75% in the general populations worldwide. When limited to use of a CAM provider 2% to 49% reported use is found. CAM use is believed to be closely associated with socio demographic variables such as gender, age, education, income and health complaints. However, studies have only occasionally differentiated CAM use according to gender. Therefore, the aim of the study presented here is to describe the prevalence of CAM use on the background of gender and to describe the specific characteristics of male and female users in the total Tromsø 6 population.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 29 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 4 14%
Student > Bachelor 4 14%
Researcher 4 14%
Librarian 1 3%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 3%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 13 45%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 10%
Environmental Science 2 7%
Social Sciences 2 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 15 52%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 04 October 2019.
All research outputs
#1,314,791
of 14,083,883 outputs
Outputs from BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine
#289
of 2,937 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#30,139
of 300,694 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine
#43
of 371 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,083,883 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,937 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 300,694 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 371 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.