| Title |
Lay epidemiology and the rationality of responses to health education.
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
British Journal of General Practice, October 1991
|
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
S Frankel, C Davison, G D Smith |
| Abstract |
Health education has long been seen as an important component of primary care, and under the new contract has become routine. It is important to consider the likely impact of general practitioners' endeavours in the light of the experience of health education to date. Despite decades of efforts directed towards reducing the population's adherence to practices deemed harmful to health, it must be acknowledged that the impact of such activity has been disappointing. This paper considers some cultural origins of public scepticism to health education messages, and argues for a more balanced presentation of current knowledge concerning the causes of disease and the probability that individuals will benefit by changing their behaviour. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Japan | 1 | 50% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 65 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 3% |
| Singapore | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 62 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 12 | 18% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 9 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 11% |
| Professor | 6 | 9% |
| Other | 14 | 22% |
| Unknown | 9 | 14% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 18 | 28% |
| Social Sciences | 14 | 22% |
| Psychology | 8 | 12% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 5 | 8% |
| Unknown | 11 | 17% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 27 July 2021.
All research outputs
#17,289,387
of 25,377,790 outputs
Outputs from British Journal of General Practice
#3,866
of 4,877 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,245
of 16,424 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Journal of General Practice
#4
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,377,790 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,877 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.7. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 16,424 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.