↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Framing of health information messages

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2011
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 (94th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
6 tweeters
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
140 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
299 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Framing of health information messages
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2011
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd006777.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Elie A Akl, Andrew D Oxman, Jeph Herrin, Gunn E Vist, Irene Terrenato, Francesca Sperati, Cecilia Costiniuk, Diana Blank, Holger Schünemann

Abstract

The same information about the evidence on health effects can be framed either in positive words or in negative words. Some research suggests that positive versus negative framing can lead to different decisions, a phenomenon described as the framing effect. Attribute framing is the positive versus negative description of a specific attribute of a single item or a state, for example, "the chance of survival with cancer is 2/3" versus "the chance of mortality with cancer is 1/3". Goal framing is the description of the consequences of performing or not performing an act as a gain versus a loss, for example, "if you undergo a screening test for cancer, your survival will be prolonged" versus "if you don't undergo screening test for cancer, your survival will be shortened".

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 299 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 4 1%
Canada 3 1%
Portugal 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Malaysia 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Unknown 287 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 69 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 44 15%
Researcher 40 13%
Student > Bachelor 23 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 18 6%
Other 50 17%
Unknown 55 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 77 26%
Psychology 45 15%
Social Sciences 37 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 27 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 2%
Other 41 14%
Unknown 65 22%

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 10 October 2020.
All research outputs
#1,747,117
of 22,428,375 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,953
of 12,243 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,653
of 251,842 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#145
of 457 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,428,375 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,243 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% 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 251,842 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 457 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 68% of its contemporaries.