↓ Skip to main content

Effectiveness of interventions to reduce indoor air pollution and/or improve health in homes using solid fuel in lower and middle income countries: protocol for a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, March 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
2 policy sources
twitter
1 tweeter
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
69 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
Effectiveness of interventions to reduce indoor air pollution and/or improve health in homes using solid fuel in lower and middle income countries: protocol for a systematic review
Published in
Systematic Reviews, March 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13643-015-0012-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Reginald Quansah, Caroline A Ochieng, Sean Semple, Sanjar Juvekar, Jacques Emina, Frederick Ato Armah, Isaac Luginaah

Abstract

Indoor air pollution (IAP) interventions are widely promoted as a means of reducing indoor air pollution/health from solid fuel use; and research addressing impact of these interventions has increased substantially in the past two decades. It is timely and important to understand more about effectiveness of these interventions. We describe the protocol of a systematic review to (i) evaluate effectiveness of IAP interventions to improve indoor air quality and/or health in homes using solid fuel for cooking and/or heating in lower- and middle-income countries, (ii) identify the most effective intervention to improve indoor air quality and/or health, and (iii) identify future research needs. This review will be conducted according to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines and will be reported following the PRISMA statement. Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, SCOPUS, and PubMed searches were conducted in September 2013 and updated in November 2014 (and include any further search updates in February 2015). Additional references will be located through searching the references cited by identified studies and through the World Health Organization Global database of household air pollution measurements. We will also search our own archives. Data extraction and risk of bias assessment of all included papers will be conducted independently by five reviewers. The study will provide insights into what interventions are most effective in reducing indoor air pollution and/or adverse health outcomes in homes using solid fuel for cooking or heating in lower- or middle-income countries. The findings from this review will be used to inform future IAP interventions and policy on poverty reduction and health improvement in poor communities who rely on biomass and solid fuels for cooking and heating. The review has been registered with PROSPERO (registration number CRD42014009768 ).

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 69 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
India 1 1%
Unknown 67 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 19 28%
Researcher 13 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 16%
Student > Bachelor 7 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 9%
Other 7 10%
Unknown 6 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 28%
Environmental Science 18 26%
Social Sciences 3 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 4%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 4%
Other 12 17%
Unknown 11 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 05 April 2016.
All research outputs
#2,855,768
of 15,501,894 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#587
of 1,366 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#48,595
of 235,609 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,501,894 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,366 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% 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 235,609 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 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them