The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 50 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Systematic review on what works, what does not work and why of implementation of mobile health (mHealth) projects in Africa
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Public Health, February 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2458-14-188 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Clara B Aranda-Jan, Neo Mohutsiwa-Dibe, Svetla Loukanova |
| Abstract |
Access to mobile phone technology has rapidly expanded in developing countries. In Africa, mHealth is a relatively new concept and questions arise regarding reliability of the technology used for health outcomes. This review documents strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) of mHealth projects in Africa. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 9 | 18% |
| United Kingdom | 3 | 6% |
| Spain | 2 | 4% |
| Uganda | 1 | 2% |
| Colombia | 1 | 2% |
| Nigeria | 1 | 2% |
| India | 1 | 2% |
| Turkey | 1 | 2% |
| Singapore | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 5 | 10% |
| Unknown | 25 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 31 | 62% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 9 | 18% |
| Scientists | 8 | 16% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 1,326 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 8 | <1% |
| United States | 6 | <1% |
| South Africa | 4 | <1% |
| Ghana | 4 | <1% |
| Tanzania, United Republic of | 3 | <1% |
| Switzerland | 2 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Sweden | 1 | <1% |
| Ireland | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 8 | <1% |
| Unknown | 1288 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 280 | 21% |
| Researcher | 180 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 164 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 95 | 7% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 83 | 6% |
| Other | 251 | 19% |
| Unknown | 273 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 286 | 22% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 134 | 10% |
| Social Sciences | 122 | 9% |
| Computer Science | 117 | 9% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 67 | 5% |
| Other | 274 | 21% |
| Unknown | 326 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 48. 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 09 October 2022.
All research outputs
#921,593
of 26,367,306 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#996
of 18,225 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,632
of 240,642 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#20
of 285 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,367,306 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 18,225 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 240,642 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 285 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.