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 |
Capturing Public Opinion on Public Health Topics: A Comparison of Experiences from a Systematic Review, Focus Group Study, and Analysis of Online, User-Generated Content
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Public Health, August 2015
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fpubh.2015.00200 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Emma Louise Giles, Jean M. Adams |
| Abstract |
Capturing public opinion toward public health topics is important to ensure that services, policy, and research are aligned with the beliefs and priorities of the general public. A number of approaches can be used to capture public opinion. We are conducting a program of work on the effectiveness and acceptability of health promoting financial incentive interventions. We have captured public opinion on financial incentive interventions using three methods: a systematic review, focus group study, and analysis of online user-generated comments to news media reports. In this short editorial-style piece, we compare and contrast our experiences with these three methods. Each of these methods had their advantages and disadvantages. Advantages include tailoring of the research question for systematic reviews, probing of answers during focus groups, and the ability to aggregate a large data set using online user-generated content. However, disadvantages include needing to update systematic reviews, participants conforming to a dominant perspective in focus groups, and being unable to collect respondent characteristics during analysis of user-generated online content. That said, analysis of user-generated online content offers additional time and resource advantages, and we found it elicited similar findings to those obtained via more traditional methods, such as systematic reviews and focus groups. A number of methods for capturing public opinions on public health topics are available. Public health researchers, policy makers, and practitioners should choose methods appropriate to their aims. Analysis of user-generated online content, especially in the context of news media reports, may be a quicker and cheaper alternative to more traditional methods, without compromising on the breadth of opinions captured. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 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 | 10 | 71% |
| Spain | 1 | 7% |
| United States | 1 | 7% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 1 | 7% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 7 | 50% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 3 | 21% |
| Members of the public | 3 | 21% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 7% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 48 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 48 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 8 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 6% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 8 | 17% |
| Unknown | 16 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 19% |
| Social Sciences | 8 | 17% |
| Psychology | 5 | 10% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 6% |
| Earth and Planetary Sciences | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 5 | 10% |
| Unknown | 16 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 2020.
All research outputs
#4,069,234
of 23,299,593 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Public Health
#1,485
of 10,808 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#51,540
of 268,036 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Public Health
#13
of 50 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,299,593 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,808 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 268,036 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 50 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.