↓ Skip to main content

Full-Range Public Health Leadership, Part 1: Quantitative Analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Public Health, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (53rd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Readers on

mendeley
88 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
Full-Range Public Health Leadership, Part 1: Quantitative Analysis
Published in
Frontiers in Public Health, April 2015
DOI 10.3389/fpubh.2015.00073
Pubmed ID
Authors

Erik L. Carlton, James W. Holsinger, Martha Riddell, Heather Bush

Abstract

Workforce and leadership development are central to the future of public health. However, public health has been slow to translate and apply leadership models from other professions and to incorporate local perspectives in understanding public health leadership. This study utilized the full-range leadership model in order to examine public health leadership. Specifically, it sought to measure leadership styles among local health department directors and to understand the context of leadership in local health departments. Leadership styles among local health department directors (n = 13) were examined using survey methodology. Quantitative analysis methods included descriptive statistics, boxplots, and Pearson bivariate correlations using SPSS v18.0. Self-reported leadership styles were highly correlated to leadership outcomes at the organizational level. However, they were not related to county health rankings. Results suggest the preeminence of leader behaviors and providing individual consideration to staff as compared to idealized attributes of leaders, intellectual stimulation, or inspirational motivation. Holistic leadership assessment instruments such as the multifactor leadership questionnaire can be useful in assessing public health leaders' approaches and outcomes. Comprehensive, 360-degree reviews may be especially helpful. Further research is needed to examine the effectiveness of public health leadership development models, as well as the extent that public health leadership impacts public health outcomes.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 88 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 88 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 22 25%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 7%
Lecturer 5 6%
Student > Bachelor 5 6%
Other 17 19%
Unknown 24 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 19 22%
Medicine and Dentistry 14 16%
Business, Management and Accounting 10 11%
Social Sciences 6 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Other 12 14%
Unknown 24 27%
Attention Score in Context

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 05 October 2015.
All research outputs
#13,083,523
of 22,800,560 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Public Health
#2,781
of 9,798 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#121,847
of 263,976 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Public Health
#26
of 74 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,800,560 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,798 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 263,976 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 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 74 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 63% of its contemporaries.