↓ Skip to main content

Human–Wildlife Interactions Predict Febrile Illness in Park Landscapes of Western Uganda

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

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
6 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
39 Mendeley
Title
Human–Wildlife Interactions Predict Febrile Illness in Park Landscapes of Western Uganda
Published in
EcoHealth, November 2017
DOI 10.1007/s10393-017-1286-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jonathan Salerno, Noam Ross, Ria Ghai, Michael Mahero, Dominic A. Travis, Thomas R. Gillespie, Joel Hartter

Abstract

Fevers of unknown origin complicate treatment and prevention of infectious diseases and are a global health burden. We examined risk factors of self-reported fever-categorized as "malarial" and "nonmalarial"-in households adjacent to national parks across the Ugandan Albertine Rift, a biodiversity and emerging infectious disease hotspot. Statistical models fitted to these data suggest that perceived nonmalarial fevers of unknown origin were associated with more frequent direct contact with wildlife and with increased distance from parks where wildlife habitat is limited to small forest fragments. Perceived malarial fevers were associated with close proximity to parks but were not associated with direct wildlife contact. Self-reported fevers of any kind were not associated with livestock ownership. These results suggest a hypothesis that nonmalarial fevers in this area are associated with wildlife contact, and further investigation of zoonoses from wildlife is warranted. More generally, our findings of land use-disease relationships aid in hypothesis development for future research in this social-ecological system where emerging infectious diseases specifically, and rural public health provisioning generally, are important issues.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 39 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 13 33%
Student > Master 9 23%
Researcher 5 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 13%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 8%
Other 4 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 15 38%
Environmental Science 6 15%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 3 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 5%
Other 11 28%

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 20 December 2017.
All research outputs
#3,915,919
of 13,621,997 outputs
Outputs from EcoHealth
#230
of 518 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#130,640
of 393,422 outputs
Outputs of similar age from EcoHealth
#10
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,621,997 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 518 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% 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 393,422 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 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 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 50% of its contemporaries.