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 |
Importance of factors determining the effective lifetime of a mass, long-lasting, insecticidal net distribution: a sensitivity analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Malaria Journal, January 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1475-2875-11-20 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Olivier JT Briët, Diggory Hardy, Thomas A Smith |
| Abstract |
Long-lasting insecticidal nets (LLINs) reduce malaria transmission by protecting individuals from infectious bites, and by reducing mosquito survival. In recent years, millions of LLINs have been distributed across sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). Over time, LLINs decay physically and chemically and are destroyed, making repeated interventions necessary to prevent a resurgence of malaria. Because its effects on transmission are important (more so than the effects of individual protection), estimates of the lifetime of mass distribution rounds should be based on the effective length of epidemiological protection. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Switzerland | 1 | 50% |
| United States | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 113 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 2% |
| Kenya | 1 | <1% |
| Sudan | 1 | <1% |
| Tanzania, United Republic of | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 108 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 24 | 21% |
| Researcher | 17 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 15 | 13% |
| Other | 10 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 8 | 7% |
| Other | 21 | 19% |
| Unknown | 18 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 26 | 23% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 17 | 15% |
| Social Sciences | 11 | 10% |
| Mathematics | 9 | 8% |
| Computer Science | 7 | 6% |
| Other | 19 | 17% |
| Unknown | 24 | 21% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 11 October 2012.
All research outputs
#13,992,805
of 24,400,706 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
#3,329
of 5,827 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#150,382
of 251,307 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
#52
of 73 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,400,706 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,827 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% 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 251,307 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 73 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.