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 |
Responses to textual and pictorial cigarette pack health warnings: findings from an exploratory cross-sectional survey study in Austria
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Public Health, April 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12889-018-5342-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Hannes Mayerl, Erwin Stolz, Wolfgang Freidl |
| Abstract |
Packaging and labelling tobacco products has emerged as an effective policy to reduce the global health burden of tobacco use. The main purpose of this study was to explore Austrian smokers' and ex-smokers' responses to both the textual and pictorial cigarette pack health warnings (CPHWs) recently implemented. We analysed self-reported data (N=500) from an Austrian cross-sectional survey that was conducted after the implementation of the new pictorial CPHWs in 2016. The results showed only weak effects of the CPHWs on the decision to quit or reduce smoking, and the level of impact of the CPHWs remained limited particularly because of smokers denying the ill-effects of tobacco use. Although the CPHWs seem to have the potential to promote a change in smoking behaviour, the warnings reached only a rather small group of smokers, while the majority of smokers appeared to remain unaffected by this intervention. Public health policies are challenged to increase the salience of CPHWs and to overcome smokers' denial of detrimental health effects. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 26 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 4 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 12% |
| Lecturer | 2 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 8% |
| Other | 2 | 8% |
| Other | 3 | 12% |
| Unknown | 10 | 38% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 19% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 19% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 4% |
| Psychology | 1 | 4% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 13 | 50% |
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 04 April 2018.
All research outputs
#17,939,682
of 23,035,022 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#12,562
of 15,003 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#239,059
of 329,113 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#279
of 312 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,035,022 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 15,003 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.0. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% 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 329,113 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 312 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.