↓ Skip to main content

WHAT ROLES DO CONTEMPORANEOUS AND CUMULATIVE INCOMES PLAY IN THE INCOME–CHILD HEALTH GRADIENT FOR YOUNG CHILDREN? EVIDENCE FROM AN AUSTRALIAN PANEL

Overview of attention for article published in Health economics (Online), June 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
42 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
WHAT ROLES DO CONTEMPORANEOUS AND CUMULATIVE INCOMES PLAY IN THE INCOME–CHILD HEALTH GRADIENT FOR YOUNG CHILDREN? EVIDENCE FROM AN AUSTRALIAN PANEL
Published in
Health economics (Online), June 2013
DOI 10.1002/hec.2961
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rasheda Khanam, Hong Son Nghiem, Luke Brian Connelly

Abstract

The literature to date shows that children from poorer households tend to have worse health than their peers, and the gap between them grows with age. We investigate whether and how health shocks (as measured by the onset of chronic conditions) contribute to the income-child health gradient and whether the contemporaneous or cumulative effects of income play important mitigating roles. We exploit a rich panel dataset with three panel waves called the Longitudinal Study of Australian children. Given the availability of three waves of data, we are able to apply a range of econometric techniques (e.g. fixed and random effects) to control for unobserved heterogeneity. The paper makes several contributions to the extant literature. First, it shows that an apparent income gradient becomes relatively attenuated in our dataset when the cumulative and contemporaneous effects of household income are distinguished econometrically. Second, it demonstrates that the income-child health gradient becomes statistically insignificant when controlling for parental health and health-related behaviours or unobserved heterogeneity. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 1 2%
Unknown 41 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 24%
Researcher 8 19%
Student > Master 7 17%
Professor 2 5%
Librarian 1 2%
Other 3 7%
Unknown 11 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 19%
Social Sciences 7 17%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 6 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 7%
Psychology 2 5%
Other 3 7%
Unknown 13 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 June 2013.
All research outputs
#22,759,452
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Health economics (Online)
#2,583
of 2,666 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#185,367
of 209,379 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health economics (Online)
#43
of 48 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,666 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.5. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 209,379 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 48 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.