↓ Skip to main content

Cervical screening by socio‐economic status in Australia

Overview of attention for article published in Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, June 2001
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
32 Mendeley
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.
Title
Cervical screening by socio‐economic status in Australia
Published in
Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, June 2001
DOI 10.1111/j.1467-842x.2001.tb00573.x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Richard J. Taylor, Hassan A. Mamoon, Stephen L. Morrell, Gerry V. Wain

Abstract

To examine differentials and time trends in self-reported Pap test rates by socio-economic status (SES) from the 1989/90 and 1995 Australian National Health Surveys (NHS). The unit record data for females were extracted from the two NHSs and combined. The outcome variable of interest was 'having a Pap test in the past three years'. The principal study factor was SES measured as individual characteristics and SES of area of residence. Migrant status, rurality, year of survey and age were controlled for in logistic regression models. Self-reported rates of having a Pap test in the past three years were higher in women from higher compared with lower SES groups. Compared with women with a bachelor or higher degree, the odds of reporting having a Pap test in the past three years in women with no post-school qualification was 0.86 (p<0.0005). Women with a gross annual income of less than $20,000 had significantly lower odds (OR=0.79) compared with women earning $40,000 or more. Blue collar (OR=0.84) and not employed (OR=0.73) women also had significantly lower odds compared to the referent white collar group. This study reveals differentials in Pap screening behaviour by individual measures of SES in Australia. Area-based SES measures under-estimated the SES differentials in Pap test rates compared with individual measures. Derived population attributable fractions reveal that about a quarter of self-reported under-screening is accounted for by low SES when measured individually, compared to 8% when SES is measured ecologically.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 32 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 16%
Student > Bachelor 5 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 9%
Student > Master 3 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 6%
Other 7 22%
Unknown 7 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 47%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Philosophy 1 3%
Psychology 1 3%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 9 28%
Attention Score in Context

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 05 September 2019.
All research outputs
#8,535,684
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health
#1,065
of 1,909 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,149
of 41,874 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health
#3
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 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 1,909 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.3. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 41,874 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.