| Title |
Email for the provision of information on disease prevention and health promotion
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd007982.pub2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Prescilla Sawmynaden, Helen Atherton, Azeem Majeed, Josip Car |
| Abstract |
Email is a popular and commonly used method of communication, but its use in health care is not routine. Its application in health care has included the provision of information on disease prevention and health promotion, but the effects of using email in this way are not known. This review assesses the use of email for the provision of information on disease prevention and health promotion. |
Twitter Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 5 | 42% |
| Canada | 2 | 17% |
| Australia | 1 | 8% |
| Norway | 1 | 8% |
| Spain | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 2 | 17% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 50% |
| Scientists | 3 | 25% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 17% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 8% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 282 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 2 | <1% |
| United States | 2 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | <1% |
| South Africa | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 273 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 45 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 38 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 35 | 12% |
| Researcher | 32 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 14 | 5% |
| Other | 47 | 17% |
| Unknown | 71 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 91 | 32% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 31 | 11% |
| Psychology | 24 | 9% |
| Social Sciences | 20 | 7% |
| Computer Science | 5 | 2% |
| Other | 32 | 11% |
| Unknown | 79 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 22. 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 July 2013.
All research outputs
#1,581,282
of 23,934,148 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,609
of 12,772 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,065
of 181,180 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#72
of 245 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,934,148 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,772 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 33.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% 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 181,180 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 245 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 71% of its contemporaries.