↓ Skip to main content

Lay epidemiology and the rationality of responses to health education.

Overview of attention for article published in British Journal of General Practice, October 1991
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
116 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
60 Mendeley
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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 60 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 57 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 20%
Professor > Associate Professor 9 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 12%
Student > Bachelor 7 12%
Student > Master 6 10%
Other 11 18%
Unknown 8 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 30%
Social Sciences 13 22%
Psychology 7 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 8%
Arts and Humanities 3 5%
Other 4 7%
Unknown 10 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
#12,657,517
of 19,206,351 outputs
Outputs from British Journal of General Practice
#2,974
of 3,870 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#158,280
of 261,312 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Journal of General Practice
#36
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,206,351 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,870 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.7. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% 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 261,312 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 46 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.