↓ Skip to main content

Communicating the Risk of MRSA: The Role of Clinical Practice, Regulation and Other Policies in Five European Countries

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Public Health, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (65th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
34 Mendeley
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.
Title
Communicating the Risk of MRSA: The Role of Clinical Practice, Regulation and Other Policies in Five European Countries
Published in
Frontiers in Public Health, March 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpubh.2017.00044
Pubmed ID
Authors

Petra Dickmann, Sam Keeping, Nora Döring, Andrea E. Schmidt, Claudia Binder, Sergio Ariño-Blasco, Joan Gil

Abstract

The threat posed by Meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) has taken on an increasingly pan-European dimension. This article aims to provide an overview of the different approaches to the control of MRSA adopted in five European countries (Austria, Germany, Netherlands, Spain, and the UK) and discusses data and reporting mechanisms, regulations, guidelines, and health policy approaches with a focus on risk communication. Our hypothesis is that current infection control practices in different European countries are implicit messages that contribute to the health-related risk communication and subsequently to the public perception of risk posed by MRSA. A reporting template was used to systematically collect information from each country. Large variation in approaches was observed between countries. However, there were a number of consistent themes relevant to the communication of key information regarding MRSA, including misleading messages, inconsistencies in content and application of published guidelines, and frictions between the official communication and their adoption on provider level. The variability of recommendations within, and across, countries could be contributing to the perception of inconsistency. Having inconsistent guidelines and practices in place may also be affecting the level at which recommended behaviors are adopted. The discrepancy between the official, explicit health messages around MRSA and the implicit messages stemming from the performance of infection control measures should, therefore, be a key target for those wishing to improve risk communication.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 34 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 5 15%
Researcher 4 12%
Student > Master 4 12%
Other 3 9%
Librarian 2 6%
Other 6 18%
Unknown 10 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 21%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 15%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 2 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 6%
Unspecified 1 3%
Other 7 21%
Unknown 10 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 25 February 2020.
All research outputs
#6,472,271
of 22,958,253 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Public Health
#2,119
of 10,103 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#113,585
of 333,978 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Public Health
#32
of 92 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,958,253 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,103 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 333,978 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 92 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 65% of its contemporaries.