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 |
Characterizing Hospital Workers' Willingness to Respond to a Radiological Event
|
---|---|
Published in |
PLOS ONE, October 2011
|
DOI | 10.1371/journal.pone.0025327 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Ran D. Balicer, Christina L. Catlett, Daniel J. Barnett, Carol B. Thompson, Edbert B. Hsu, Melinda J. Morton, Natalie L. Semon, Christopher M. Watson, Howard S. Gwon, Jonathan M. Links |
Abstract |
Terrorist use of a radiological dispersal device (RDD, or "dirty bomb"), which combines a conventional explosive device with radiological materials, is among the National Planning Scenarios of the United States government. Understanding employee willingness to respond is critical for planning experts. Previous research has demonstrated that perception of threat and efficacy is key in the assessing willingness to respond to a RDD event. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United Kingdom | 2 | 67% |
United States | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 65 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Iran, Islamic Republic of | 1 | 2% |
Unknown | 64 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 15% |
Student > Master | 8 | 12% |
Student > Bachelor | 6 | 9% |
Researcher | 5 | 8% |
Other | 4 | 6% |
Other | 12 | 18% |
Unknown | 20 | 31% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 22% |
Social Sciences | 7 | 11% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 8% |
Engineering | 4 | 6% |
Psychology | 3 | 5% |
Other | 8 | 12% |
Unknown | 24 | 37% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 21 February 2012.
All research outputs
#7,103,488
of 22,662,201 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#84,031
of 193,504 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#45,035
of 140,446 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#981
of 2,597 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,662,201 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 193,504 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% 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 140,446 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 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2,597 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its contemporaries.