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 |
Economic evaluation of three populational screening strategies for cervical cancer in the county of Valles Occidental: CRICERVA clinical trial
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Health Services Research, October 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1472-6963-11-278 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Amelia Acera, Ana Rodriguez, Marta Trapero-Bertran, Pilar Soteras, Norman Sanchez, Josep M Bonet, Josep M Manresa, Pablo Hidalgo, Pere Toran, Gemma Prieto |
| Abstract |
A high percentage of cervical cancer cases have not undergone cytological tests within 10 years prior to diagnosis. Different population interventions could improve coverage in the public system, although costs will also increase. The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness and the costs of three types of population interventions to increase the number of female participants in the screening programmes for cancer of the cervix carried out by Primary Care in four basic health care areas. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 104 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 4 | 4% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 99 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 16 | 15% |
| Researcher | 14 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 6 | 6% |
| Other | 24 | 23% |
| Unknown | 25 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 33 | 32% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 8 | 8% |
| Social Sciences | 7 | 7% |
| Psychology | 7 | 7% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 14 | 13% |
| Unknown | 31 | 30% |
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 23 October 2011.
All research outputs
#15,237,301
of 22,655,397 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#5,518
of 7,572 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#95,279
of 139,261 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#63
of 90 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,655,397 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,572 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% 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 139,261 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 90 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.