↓ Skip to main content

Surveying alcohol and other drug use through telephone sampling: a comparison of landline and mobile phone samples

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, March 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
8 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
50 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Surveying alcohol and other drug use through telephone sampling: a comparison of landline and mobile phone samples
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, March 2013
DOI 10.1186/1471-2288-13-41
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michael Livingston, Paul Dietze, Jason Ferris, Darren Pennay, Linda Hayes, Simon Lenton

Abstract

Telephone surveys based on samples of landline telephone numbers are widely used to measure the prevalence of health risk behaviours such as smoking, drug use and alcohol consumption. An increasing number of households are relying solely on mobile telephones, creating a potential bias for population estimates derived from landline-based sampling frames which do not incorporate mobile phone numbers. Studies in the US have identified significant differences between landline and mobile telephone users in smoking and alcohol consumption, but there has been little work in other settings or focussed on illicit drugs.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 50 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Romania 1 2%
South Africa 1 2%
Australia 1 2%
Unknown 47 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 22%
Student > Bachelor 9 18%
Researcher 9 18%
Other 6 12%
Student > Master 6 12%
Other 5 10%
Unknown 4 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 34%
Social Sciences 6 12%
Psychology 5 10%
Arts and Humanities 3 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 4%
Other 10 20%
Unknown 7 14%

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 16 August 2013.
All research outputs
#3,122,147
of 12,373,180 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#449
of 1,095 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#34,628
of 143,018 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#6
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,373,180 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,095 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% 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 143,018 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 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.