| Title |
Infant Mortality Rate as a Measure of a Country’s Health: A Robust Method to Improve Reliability and Comparability
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Demography, February 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s13524-017-0553-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Robert M. Gonzalez, Donna Gilleskie |
| Abstract |
Researchers and policymakers often rely on the infant mortality rate as an indicator of a country's health. Despite arguments about its relevance, uniform measurement of infant mortality is necessary to guarantee its use as a valid measure of population health. Using important socioeconomic indicators, we develop a novel method to adjust country-specific reported infant mortality figures. We conclude that an augmented measure of mortality that includes both infant and late fetal deaths should be considered when assessing levels of social welfare in a country. In addition, mortality statistics that exhibit a substantially high ratio of late fetal to early neonatal deaths should be more closely scrutinized. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 20 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 4 | 20% |
| Germany | 1 | 5% |
| Argentina | 1 | 5% |
| Puerto Rico | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 13 | 65% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 18 | 90% |
| Scientists | 2 | 10% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 126 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 126 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 18 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 17 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 15 | 12% |
| Researcher | 13 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 9 | 7% |
| Other | 17 | 13% |
| Unknown | 37 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 25 | 20% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 15 | 12% |
| Social Sciences | 14 | 11% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 8 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 2% |
| Other | 19 | 15% |
| Unknown | 42 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 26 October 2023.
All research outputs
#2,269,535
of 25,750,437 outputs
Outputs from Demography
#611
of 2,023 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#41,827
of 325,417 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Demography
#13
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,750,437 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,023 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 27.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% 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 325,417 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 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.