↓ Skip to main content

Leading Causes of Death in Nonmetropolitan and Metropolitan Areas— United States, 1999–2014

Overview of attention for article published in MMWR Surveillance Summaries, January 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 (#36 of 217)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
24 news outlets
blogs
4 blogs
policy
4 policy sources
twitter
106 X users
facebook
16 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
237 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
184 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Leading Causes of Death in Nonmetropolitan and Metropolitan Areas— United States, 1999–2014
Published in
MMWR Surveillance Summaries, January 2017
DOI 10.15585/mmwr.ss6601a1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ernest Moy, Macarena C. Garcia, Brigham Bastian, Lauren M. Rossen, Deborah D. Ingram, Mark Faul, Greta M. Massetti, Cheryll C. Thomas, Yuling Hong, Paula W. Yoon, Michael F. Iademarco

Abstract

Higher rates of death in nonmetropolitan areas (often referred to as rural areas) compared with metropolitan areas have been described but not systematically assessed. 1999-2014 DESCRIPTION OF SYSTEM: Mortality data for U.S. residents from the National Vital Statistics System were used to calculate age-adjusted death rates and potentially excess deaths for nonmetropolitan and metropolitan areas for the five leading causes of death. Age-adjusted death rates included all ages and were adjusted to the 2000 U.S. standard population by the direct method. Potentially excess deaths are defined as deaths among persons aged <80 years that exceed the numbers that would be expected if the death rates of states with the lowest rates (i.e., benchmark states) occurred across all states. (Benchmark states were the three states with the lowest rates for each cause during 2008-2010.) Potentially excess deaths were calculated separately for nonmetropolitan and metropolitan areas. Data are presented for the United States and the 10 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services public health regions. Across the United States, nonmetropolitan areas experienced higher age-adjusted death rates than metropolitan areas. The percentages of potentially excess deaths among persons aged <80 years from the five leading causes were higher in nonmetropolitan areas than in metropolitan areas. For example, approximately half of deaths from unintentional injury and chronic lower respiratory disease in nonmetropolitan areas were potentially excess deaths, compared with 39.2% and 30.9%, respectively, in metropolitan areas. Potentially excess deaths also differed among and within public health regions; within regions, nonmetropolitan areas tended to have higher percentages of potentially excess deaths than metropolitan areas. Compared with metropolitan areas, nonmetropolitan areas have higher age-adjusted death rates and greater percentages of potentially excess deaths from the five leading causes of death, nationally and across public health regions. Routine tracking of potentially excess deaths in nonmetropolitan areas might help public health departments identify emerging health problems, monitor known problems, and focus interventions to reduce preventable deaths in these areas.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 106 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 184 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 1%
Unknown 182 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 29 16%
Researcher 28 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 12%
Student > Bachelor 15 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 13 7%
Other 29 16%
Unknown 48 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 44 24%
Social Sciences 26 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 21 11%
Psychology 6 3%
Engineering 5 3%
Other 19 10%
Unknown 63 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 308. 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 28 January 2023.
All research outputs
#109,646
of 25,225,182 outputs
Outputs from MMWR Surveillance Summaries
#36
of 217 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,614
of 433,784 outputs
Outputs of similar age from MMWR Surveillance Summaries
#3
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,225,182 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 217 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 193.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 433,784 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.