↓ Skip to main content

Human–Wildlife Interactions Predict Febrile Illness in Park Landscapes of Western Uganda

Overview of attention for article published in EcoHealth, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (54th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Readers on

mendeley
107 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
Human–Wildlife Interactions Predict Febrile Illness in Park Landscapes of Western Uganda
Published in
EcoHealth, November 2017
DOI 10.1007/s10393-017-1286-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jonathan Salerno, Noam Ross, Ria Ghai, Michael Mahero, Dominic A. Travis, Thomas R. Gillespie, Joel Hartter

Abstract

Fevers of unknown origin complicate treatment and prevention of infectious diseases and are a global health burden. We examined risk factors of self-reported fever-categorized as "malarial" and "nonmalarial"-in households adjacent to national parks across the Ugandan Albertine Rift, a biodiversity and emerging infectious disease hotspot. Statistical models fitted to these data suggest that perceived nonmalarial fevers of unknown origin were associated with more frequent direct contact with wildlife and with increased distance from parks where wildlife habitat is limited to small forest fragments. Perceived malarial fevers were associated with close proximity to parks but were not associated with direct wildlife contact. Self-reported fevers of any kind were not associated with livestock ownership. These results suggest a hypothesis that nonmalarial fevers in this area are associated with wildlife contact, and further investigation of zoonoses from wildlife is warranted. More generally, our findings of land use-disease relationships aid in hypothesis development for future research in this social-ecological system where emerging infectious diseases specifically, and rural public health provisioning generally, are important issues.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 107 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 107 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 19 18%
Researcher 18 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 7%
Student > Bachelor 8 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 7%
Other 13 12%
Unknown 34 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 12 11%
Environmental Science 11 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 7%
Social Sciences 5 5%
Other 19 18%
Unknown 42 39%
Attention Score in Context

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 28 August 2018.
All research outputs
#13,052,934
of 23,544,006 outputs
Outputs from EcoHealth
#453
of 711 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#198,548
of 441,198 outputs
Outputs of similar age from EcoHealth
#14
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,544,006 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 711 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.0. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% 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 441,198 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.