| Title |
Occupational safety and health enforcement tools for preventing occupational diseases and injuries
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd010183.pub2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Christina Mischke, Jos H Verbeek, Jenny Job, Thais C Morata, Anne Alvesalo-Kuusi, Kaisa Neuvonen, Simon Clarke, Robert I Pedlow |
| Abstract |
There is uncertainty as to whether and what extent occupational safety and health regulation and legislation enforcement activities, such as inspections, are effective and efficient to improve workers' health and safety. We use the term regulation to refer both to regulation and legislation. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 21 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| France | 3 | 14% |
| Canada | 3 | 14% |
| Finland | 2 | 10% |
| Australia | 1 | 5% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 5% |
| Colombia | 1 | 5% |
| Belgium | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 9 | 43% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 15 | 71% |
| Scientists | 2 | 10% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 10% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 1 | 5% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 278 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 2 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Colombia | 1 | <1% |
| Chile | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 272 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 47 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 36 | 13% |
| Researcher | 23 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 18 | 6% |
| Student > Bachelor | 16 | 6% |
| Other | 60 | 22% |
| Unknown | 78 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 56 | 20% |
| Social Sciences | 27 | 10% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 26 | 9% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 16 | 6% |
| Engineering | 13 | 5% |
| Other | 47 | 17% |
| Unknown | 93 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 25. 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 08 October 2020.
All research outputs
#1,374,588
of 23,674,309 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,136
of 12,752 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,438
of 200,971 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#70
of 231 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,674,309 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,752 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 33.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% 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 200,971 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 231 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 70% of its contemporaries.