↓ Skip to main content

Comparing Knowledge, Accessibility, and Use of Evidence-Based Chronic Disease Prevention Processes Across Four Countries

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
12 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
28 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
Comparing Knowledge, Accessibility, and Use of Evidence-Based Chronic Disease Prevention Processes Across Four Countries
Published in
Frontiers in Public Health, August 2018
DOI 10.3389/fpubh.2018.00214
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anna J. DeRuyter, Xiangji Ying, Elizabeth L. Budd, Karishma Furtado, Rodrigo Reis, Zhaoxin Wang, Pauline Sung-Chan, Rebecca Armstrong, Tahna Pettman, Leonardo Becker, Tabitha Mui, Jianwei Shi, Tahnee Saunders, Ross C. Brownson

Abstract

Background: Evidence-based chronic disease prevention (EBCDP) effectively reduces incidence rates of many chronic diseases, but contextual factors influence the implementation of EBCDP worldwide. This study aims to examine the following contextual factors across four countries: knowledge, access, and use of chronic disease prevention processes. Methods: In this cross-sectional study, public health practitioners (N = 400) from Australia (n = 121), Brazil (n = 76), China (n = 102), and the United States (n = 101) completed a 26-question survey on EBCDP. One-way ANOVA and Pearson's Chi-Square tests were used to assess differences in contextual factors of interest by country. Results: Practitioners in China reported less knowledge of EBCDP processes (p < 0.001) and less use of repositories of evidence-based interventions, than those from other countries (p < 0.001). Academic journals were the most frequently used method for accessing information about evidence-based interventions across countries. When selecting interventions, Brazilian and Chinese practitioners were more likely to consider implementation ease while the Australian and United States practitioners were more likely to consider effectiveness (p < 0.001). Conclusions: These findings can help inform and improve within and across country strategies for implementing EBCDP interventions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 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 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 28 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 21%
Researcher 3 11%
Professor 2 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 4%
Other 5 18%
Unknown 5 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 3 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 11%
Computer Science 2 7%
Psychology 2 7%
Social Sciences 2 7%
Other 6 21%
Unknown 10 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 25 October 2019.
All research outputs
#2,456,800
of 25,848,323 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Public Health
#1,182
of 14,439 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#47,517
of 343,189 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Public Health
#17
of 85 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,848,323 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,439 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 343,189 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 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 85 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.