↓ Skip to main content

Assessing Audience Members' Ability to Identify the Media Source of a Health Campaign Disseminated via Different Media

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Public Health, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (61st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
9 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
Assessing Audience Members' Ability to Identify the Media Source of a Health Campaign Disseminated via Different Media
Published in
Frontiers in Public Health, July 2018
DOI 10.3389/fpubh.2018.00196
Pubmed ID
Authors

Simone Pettigrew, Michelle Jongenelis, Fiona Phillips, Terry Slevin, Vanessa Allom, Stacey Keightley, Sarah Beasley

Abstract

Background: An important criterion for health campaign media selection is the ability to achieve campaign awareness among target audiences. However, existing campaign exposure metrics cannot be applied across both traditional and digital media, which complicates decision making. The present study assessed the validity of using self-report as a measure of the extent to which different types of media achieve campaign awareness to assist in determining appropriate media budget allocations. Methods: A quasi-experiment involving varying combinations of television, online video, and online display smoking cessation advertisements was conducted to determine whether audience members were able to accurately report the source of their exposure to the campaign. Results: Of the 719 Western Australian adults sampled (50% males, 50 females, 50% smokers, 50% non-smokers), 64% reported seeing the campaign in the previous 2 weeks. Of these, 91% reported seeing the advertisement on television, 8% on online video, and 21% on online display (respondents could select multiple media). Despite proportional scheduling of the three media over the discrete campaign periods, in most cases respondents assumed their exposure had occurred via television, regardless of the actual source of exposure. Conclusions: Among both smokers and non-smokers, television had primacy in memory regardless of the actual media used. As such, relying on self-reported recall is unlikely to constitute a reliable method of assessing target audience exposure to campaigns on different media where those media are all screen-based. The results highlight the need for alternative media effectiveness metrics that permit direct comparisons between traditional and digital media.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 9 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 9 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 2 22%
Student > Bachelor 1 11%
Lecturer 1 11%
Researcher 1 11%
Unknown 4 44%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 2 22%
Arts and Humanities 1 11%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 11%
Engineering 1 11%
Unknown 4 44%
Attention Score in Context

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 16 October 2018.
All research outputs
#4,034,880
of 23,330,477 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Public Health
#1,463
of 10,863 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#76,551
of 329,735 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Public Health
#31
of 78 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,330,477 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 10,863 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 329,735 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 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 78 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.