↓ Skip to main content

Mapping Disease Data: A Usability Test of an Internet-Based System of Disease Status Disclosure

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Veterinary Science, January 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)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
11 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
22 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
Mapping Disease Data: A Usability Test of an Internet-Based System of Disease Status Disclosure
Published in
Frontiers in Veterinary Science, January 2018
DOI 10.3389/fvets.2017.00230
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gareth Enticott, Andrew Mitchell, William Wint, Nigel Tait

Abstract

Disease maps are important tools in the management of disease. By communicating risk, disease maps can help raise awareness of disease and encourage farmers and veterinarians to employ best practice to eliminate the spread of disease. However, despite the importance of disease maps in communicating risk and the existence of various online disease maps, there are few studies that explicitly examine their usability. Where disease maps are complicated to use, it seems that they are unlikely to be used effectively. The paper outlines an attempt to create an open access, online, searchable map of incidents of bovine tuberculosis in England and Wales, and analyzes its usability among veterinarians. The paper describes the process of creating the map before describing the results of a series of usability trials. Results show the map to score highly on different measures of usability. However, the trials also revealed a number of social and technical limitations and challenges facing the use of online disease maps, including reputational dangers, role confusion, data accuracy, and data representation. The paper considers the challenges facing disease maps and their potential role in designing new methodologies to evaluate the effectiveness of disease prevention initiatives.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 22 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 23%
Student > Master 3 14%
Other 2 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 5%
Other 3 14%
Unknown 6 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 5 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 9%
Computer Science 2 9%
Other 4 18%
Unknown 5 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 23 January 2018.
All research outputs
#5,198,991
of 25,411,814 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Veterinary Science
#945
of 8,108 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#104,735
of 449,740 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Veterinary Science
#17
of 67 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,411,814 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,108 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 449,740 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 67 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.