The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 |
Radon Risk and Remediation: A Psychological Perspective
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Public Health, March 2017
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fpubh.2017.00063 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
David Hevey |
| Abstract |
Although radon exposure in the home increases the risk of lung cancer, this risk can be managed. However, evidence indicates that testing for radon and subsequent home remediation rates are generally low in many countries. The present perspective outlines some key insights from psychological science that might account for sub-optimal radon protection. Psychological aspects of how the health risks posed by radon are perceived and managed are outlined. There is need to consider radon risk perception in terms of the (a) cognitive and emotional responses to radon and (b) social context in which the radon threat occurs. In addition, the nature of the threat itself is integral to the failure for people to act in response to a radon threat. Finally, the challenges arising from defensive processing of radon threat information are outlined. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Denmark | 1 | 20% |
| United States | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 3 | 60% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 60% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 40% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 36 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 6 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 8% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 2 | 6% |
| Unknown | 18 | 50% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Environmental Science | 4 | 11% |
| Psychology | 4 | 11% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 1 | 3% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 3% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 7 | 19% |
| Unknown | 18 | 50% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 28 August 2023.
All research outputs
#4,432,343
of 24,372,222 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Public Health
#1,792
of 12,461 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#73,813
of 312,811 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Public Health
#19
of 87 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,372,222 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,461 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 312,811 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 87 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.