↓ Skip to main content

Parental Health Literacy, Knowledge and Beliefs Regarding Upper Respiratory Infections (URI) in an Urban Latino Immigrant Population

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Urban Health, June 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (83rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (74th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
2 policy sources
twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
35 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
133 Mendeley
Title
Parental Health Literacy, Knowledge and Beliefs Regarding Upper Respiratory Infections (URI) in an Urban Latino Immigrant Population
Published in
Journal of Urban Health, June 2012
DOI 10.1007/s11524-012-9692-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ann-Margaret Dunn-Navarra, Melissa S. Stockwell, Dodi Meyer, Elaine Larson

Abstract

Parents who are recent immigrants and/or non-native English speakers are at increased risk for poor health literacy. For example, misconceptions regarding treatment for upper respiratory infections (URIs), including nonjudicious use of antibiotics, have been described among Latinos. We sought to assess the influence of health literacy on knowledge and beliefs surrounding URI care and to explore the correlation between two health literacy measures among Latino parents in northern Manhattan. A descriptive survey design was used, and a total of 154 Latino parents were enrolled from four early head start programs between September 2009 and December 2009. Health literacy was measured using the Short Test of Functional Health Literacy in Adults (S-TOFHLA) and Newest Vital Sign (NVS); parental knowledge and beliefs regarding antibiotic treatment for URIs were also assessed. Analyses were conducted in 2010 with multivariable logistic regression performed to examine predictors of health literacy. Inadequate health literacy was observed in 83.8 % of respondents using NVS and 35.7 % with the S-TOFHLA. College education was significantly associated with adequate health literacy using either the NVS or S-TOFHLA; however, other results varied between measures. Using NVS, there was a greater likelihood of adequate health literacy with US birth status (AOR 13.8; 95 % CI, 1.99-95.1), >5 years US residency (AOR 7.6; 95 % CI, 1.3-43.1) and higher antibiotic knowledge scores (AOR 1.7; 95 % CI, 1.2-2.4). Using S-TOFHLA, the odds of adequate health literacy increased with access to a regular care provider (AOR 2.6; 95 % CI, 1.2-5.6). Scores consistent with adequate health literacy on the NVS, but not the S-TOFHLA, were associated with correct beliefs regarding antibiotic use for URIs in comparison to scores of participants with inadequate health literacy. Since health literacy levels were low in this population and the risk of viral URI was high during the first few years of life, targeted education to improve health literacy, knowledge, and beliefs about URI and related antibiotic treatment is needed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 133 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Malaysia 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 130 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 25 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 14%
Student > Bachelor 17 13%
Researcher 12 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 7%
Other 30 23%
Unknown 22 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 40 30%
Social Sciences 18 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 11%
Psychology 12 9%
Engineering 6 5%
Other 17 13%
Unknown 25 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 19 September 2022.
All research outputs
#4,335,995
of 25,292,378 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Urban Health
#460
of 1,384 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,986
of 153,477 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Urban Health
#14
of 50 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,292,378 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,384 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% 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 153,477 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 50 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 74% of its contemporaries.