↓ Skip to main content

Income-related inequalities in diseases and health conditions over the business cycle

Overview of attention for article published in Health Economics Review, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
14 Mendeley
Title
Income-related inequalities in diseases and health conditions over the business cycle
Published in
Health Economics Review, March 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13561-017-0150-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tinna Laufey Ásgeirsdóttir, Hildur Margrét Jóhannsdóttir

Abstract

How business cycles affect income-related distribution of diseases and health disorders is largely unknown. We examine how the prevalence of thirty diseases and health conditions is distributed across the income spectrum using survey data collected in Iceland in 2007, 2009 and 2012. Thus, we are able to take advantage of the unusually sharp changes in economic conditions in Iceland during the Great Recession initiated in 2008 and the partial recovery that had already taken place by 2012 to analyze how income-related health inequality changed across time periods that can be described as a boom, crisis and recovery. The concentration curve and the concentration index are calculated for each disease, both overall and by gender. In all cases, we find a considerable income-related health inequality favoring higher income individuals, with a slight increase over the study period. Between 2007 and 2009, our results indicate increased inequality for women but decreased inequality for men. Between 2009 and 2012 on the contrary, men's inequality increases but women's decreases. The overarching result is thus that the economic hardship of the crisis temporarily increased female income-related health inequality, but decreased that of men.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 14 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 14 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Professor > Associate Professor 2 14%
Other 1 7%
Student > Bachelor 1 7%
Student > Master 1 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 7%
Other 2 14%
Unknown 6 43%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 3 21%
Social Sciences 2 14%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 14%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 7%
Unknown 6 43%
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 12 August 2020.
All research outputs
#13,308,699
of 22,958,253 outputs
Outputs from Health Economics Review
#167
of 430 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#155,319
of 307,900 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Economics Review
#7
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,958,253 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 430 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% 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 307,900 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.