↓ Skip to main content

A Controlled Trial to Reduce the Risk of Human Nipah Virus Exposure in Bangladesh

Overview of attention for article published in EcoHealth, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#14 of 504)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
blogs
4 blogs
twitter
5 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
25 Mendeley
Title
A Controlled Trial to Reduce the Risk of Human Nipah Virus Exposure in Bangladesh
Published in
EcoHealth, September 2017
DOI 10.1007/s10393-017-1267-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nazmun Nahar, Repon C. Paul, Rebeca Sultana, Shariful Amin Sumon, Kajal Chandra Banik, Jaynal Abedin, Mohammad Asaduzzaman, Fernando Garcia, Susan Zimicki, Mahmudur Rahman, Emily S. Gurley, Stephen P. Luby

Abstract

Human Nipah virus (NiV) infection, often fatal in Bangladesh, is primarily transmitted by drinking raw date palm sap contaminated by Pteropus bats. We assessed the impact of a behavior change communication intervention on reducing consumption of potentially NiV-contaminated raw sap. During the 2012-2014 sap harvesting seasons, we implemented interventions in two areas and compared results with a control area. In one area, we disseminated a "do not drink raw sap" message and, in the other area, encouraged only drinking sap if it had been protected from bat contamination by a barrier ("only safe sap"). Post-intervention, 40% more respondents in both intervention areas reported knowing about a disease contracted through raw sap consumption compared with control. Reported raw sap consumption decreased in all areas. The reductions in the intervention areas were not significantly greater compared to the control. Respondents directly exposed to the "only safe sap" message were more likely to report consuming raw sap from a protected source than those with no exposure (25 vs. 15%, OR 2.0, 95% CI 1.5-2.6, P < 0.001). While the intervention increased knowledge in both intervention areas, the "only safe sap" intervention reduced exposure to potentially NiV-contaminated sap and should be considered for future dissemination.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 25 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 24%
Researcher 4 16%
Student > Master 4 16%
Student > Bachelor 4 16%
Unspecified 3 12%
Other 4 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 7 28%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 16%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 2 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 8%
Other 8 32%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 49. 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 31 May 2018.
All research outputs
#329,824
of 13,017,042 outputs
Outputs from EcoHealth
#14
of 504 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,254
of 267,422 outputs
Outputs of similar age from EcoHealth
#2
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,017,042 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 504 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 267,422 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.