| Title |
Impact of delays on effectiveness of contact tracing strategies for COVID-19: a modelling study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
The Lancet Public Health, August 2020
|
| DOI | 10.1016/s2468-2667(20)30157-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Mirjam E Kretzschmar, Ganna Rozhnova, Martin C J Bootsma, Michiel van Boven, Janneke H H M van de Wijgert, Marc J M Bonten |
Twitter Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4,041 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 421 | 10% |
| Japan | 228 | 6% |
| Colombia | 198 | 5% |
| Spain | 180 | 4% |
| Australia | 117 | 3% |
| Canada | 105 | 3% |
| Mexico | 98 | 2% |
| United Kingdom | 86 | 2% |
| Netherlands | 66 | 2% |
| Other | 544 | 13% |
| Unknown | 1998 | 49% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3488 | 86% |
| Scientists | 266 | 7% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 215 | 5% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 72 | 2% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 675 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 675 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 95 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 81 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 67 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 64 | 9% |
| Other | 31 | 5% |
| Other | 118 | 17% |
| Unknown | 219 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 110 | 16% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 54 | 8% |
| Computer Science | 40 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 29 | 4% |
| Engineering | 28 | 4% |
| Other | 162 | 24% |
| Unknown | 252 | 37% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4017. 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 29 November 2022.
All research outputs
#1,178
of 24,503,201 outputs
Outputs from The Lancet Public Health
#4
of 1,044 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#87
of 403,744 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The Lancet Public Health
#2
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,503,201 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,044 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 159.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 403,744 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 39 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.