| 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. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 2 | 33% |
| Australia | 1 | 17% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 17% |
| Spain | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 1 | 17% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 50% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 17% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 17% |
| Scientists | 1 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 295 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 | 286 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 46 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 40 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 36 | 12% |
| Researcher | 34 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 14 | 5% |
| Other | 47 | 16% |
| Unknown | 78 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 93 | 32% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 32 | 11% |
| Psychology | 24 | 8% |
| Social Sciences | 21 | 7% |
| Computer Science | 5 | 2% |
| Other | 32 | 11% |
| Unknown | 88 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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
#2,070,329
of 25,806,763 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,348
of 13,140 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,558
of 193,511 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#84
of 243 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,806,763 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,140 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% 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 193,511 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 243 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 65% of its contemporaries.