↓ Skip to main content

Health Status of Gulf War and Era Veterans Serving in the US Military in 2000

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Occupational & Environmental Medicine, May 2018
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 (81st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
3 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
14 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
Health Status of Gulf War and Era Veterans Serving in the US Military in 2000
Published in
Journal of Occupational & Environmental Medicine, May 2018
DOI 10.1097/jom.0000000000001280
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ben Porter, Kyna Long, Rudolph P. Rull, Erin K. Dursa

Abstract

This research describes Gulf War and era veterans enrolled in the Millennium Cohort Study, who were sampled from US military personnel serving in 2000, and compares Health characteristics of this sample to a Department of Veterans' Affairs study sampled from the complete population. Demographics characteristics of this sample were described. Self-reported health characteristics were compared between the two studies. Gulf War and era veterans in the Millennium Cohort were generally healthier than in the VA study; they had fewer medical conditions and mental health disorders and better self-reported health. In both studies, Gulf War veterans had poorer health outcomes than era veterans. The Millennium Cohort Study is a unique resource for examining the long-term health effects of Gulf War deployment, particularly comparing deployed and nondeployed personnel and examining illnesses with long latencies.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 14 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 14 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 36%
Student > Master 3 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 7%
Other 1 7%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 3 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 3 21%
Social Sciences 2 14%
Psychology 2 14%
Computer Science 1 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 7%
Other 1 7%
Unknown 4 29%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 18 June 2018.
All research outputs
#2,322,589
of 19,413,723 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Occupational & Environmental Medicine
#508
of 4,389 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#53,461
of 294,054 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Occupational & Environmental Medicine
#13
of 62 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,413,723 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,389 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 294,054 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 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 62 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.