The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 |
Leadership for Public Health 3.0: A Preliminary Assessment of Competencies for Local Health Department Leaders
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Public Health, October 2017
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fpubh.2017.00272 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Emmanuel D. Jadhav, James W. Holsinger, Billie W. Anderson, Nicholas Homant |
| Abstract |
The foundational public health services model V1.0, developed in response to the Institute of Medicine report For the Public's Health: Investing in a Healthier Future identified important capabilities for leading local health departments (LHDs). The recommended capabilities include the organizational competencies of leadership and governance, which are described as consensus building among internal and external stakeholders. Leadership through consensus building is the main characteristic of Democratic Leadership. This style of leadership works best within the context of a competent team. Not much is known about the competency structure of LHD leadership teams. The objectives of this study characterize the competency structure of leadership teams in LHDs and identify the relevance of existing competencies for the practice of leadership in public health. The study used a cross-sectional study design. Utilizing the workforce taxonomy six management and leadership occupation titles were used as job categories. The competencies were selected from the leadership and management domain of public health competencies for the Tier -3, leadership level. Study participants were asked to rank on a Likert scale of 1-10 the relevance of each competency to their current job category, with a rank of 1 being least important and a rank of 10 being most important. The instrument was administered in person. Data were collected in 2016 from 50 public health professionals serving in leadership and management positions in a convenience sample of three LHDS. The competency of most relevance to the highest executive function category was that of "interaction with interrelated systems." For sub-agency level officers the competency of most relevance was "advocating for the role of public health." The competency of most relevance to Program Directors/Managers or Administrators was "ensuring continuous quality improvement." The variation between competencies by job category suggests there are distinct underlying relationships between the competencies by job category. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 75% |
| Unknown | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 75% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 45 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 10 | 22% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 9% |
| Lecturer > Senior Lecturer | 3 | 7% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 7% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 5 | 11% |
| Unknown | 17 | 38% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 24% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 16% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 4% |
| Psychology | 1 | 2% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 2 | 4% |
| Unknown | 21 | 47% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 29 November 2017.
All research outputs
#12,862,254
of 23,005,189 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Public Health
#2,648
of 10,232 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#149,651
of 325,925 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Public Health
#39
of 93 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,005,189 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,232 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 325,925 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 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 93 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 56% of its contemporaries.