↓ Skip to main content

Herramienta de retorno de la inversión en control del tabaquismo: ¿qué opinan aquellos que toman decisiones?

Overview of attention for article published in Gaceta Sanitaria, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (52nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 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
Herramienta de retorno de la inversión en control del tabaquismo: ¿qué opinan aquellos que toman decisiones?
Published in
Gaceta Sanitaria, March 2016
DOI 10.1016/j.gaceta.2015.10.012
Pubmed ID
Authors

Celia Muñoz, Marta Trapero-Bertran, Kei Long Cheung, Silvia Evers, Mickaël Hiligsmann, Hein de Vries, Ángel López-Nicolás

Abstract

The European EQUIPT study will co-create a return on investment tool in several countries, aiming to provide decision makers with information and justification on the returns that can be generated by investing in tobacco control. This study aimed to identify the needs of potential users in Spain in order to provide information on the transferability of the tool. Telephone interviews with stakeholders were conducted including questions about the implementation of the tool, intended use and tobacco control interventions. Implementing the tool could provide added value to the information used in decision-making to advocate for cost-effective policies. The main drawback would be the training and time needed to learn how the tool works and for internal calculations. Knowledge and ideas from potential users collected in this study could inform the EQUIPT Tool adaptation. Thus, stakeholders could have an instrument that assists them on making healthcare decisions.

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 %
United Kingdom 1 7%
Unknown 13 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 36%
Student > Bachelor 1 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 7%
Other 1 7%
Professor 1 7%
Other 2 14%
Unknown 3 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 4 29%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 14%
Psychology 2 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 7%
Other 1 7%
Unknown 2 14%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 08 February 2016.
All research outputs
#11,331,532
of 19,245,558 outputs
Outputs from Gaceta Sanitaria
#478
of 884 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#165,303
of 359,842 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Gaceta Sanitaria
#14
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,245,558 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 884 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% 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 359,842 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 52% 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.