↓ Skip to main content

Food swamps by area socioeconomic deprivation in New Zealand: a national study

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Public Health, May 2017
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 (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
23 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
55 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
96 Mendeley
Title
Food swamps by area socioeconomic deprivation in New Zealand: a national study
Published in
International Journal of Public Health, May 2017
DOI 10.1007/s00038-017-0983-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Zaynel Sushil, Stefanie Vandevijvere, Daniel J. Exeter, Boyd Swinburn

Abstract

A nationwide spatial analysis of community retail food environments in relation to area socioeconomic deprivation was conducted in New Zealand. Addresses from about 20,000 registered food outlets were retrieved from all 66 Councils. Outlets were classified, geocoded and (spatially) validated. The analysis included 4087 convenience, 4316 fast food/takeaway and 1271 supermarket and fruit/vegetable outlets and excluded outlets not considered 'healthy' or 'unhealthy'. The population-weighted density of different outlet types in Census areas and the proximity to different outlet types from Meshblock centres were calculated and associations with area socioeconomic deprivation assessed. Spatial scan statistics was used to identify food swamp areas with a significantly higher relative density of unhealthy outlets than other areas. A significantly positive association was observed between area deprivation and density of all retailers. A significantly negative association was observed between area deprivation and proximity to all retailers. Nationwide, 722 Census areas were identified as food swamps. Access to food retailers is significantly higher in more deprived areas than in less deprived areas. Restricting unhealthy outlets in areas with a high relative density of those outlets is recommended.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 23 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 96 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Unknown 95 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 16 17%
Researcher 15 16%
Student > Bachelor 12 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 5%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 4%
Other 10 10%
Unknown 34 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 14 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 13 14%
Social Sciences 9 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 6%
Decision Sciences 2 2%
Other 12 13%
Unknown 40 42%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 25. 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 01 May 2022.
All research outputs
#1,547,090
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Public Health
#160
of 1,900 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,613
of 327,324 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Public Health
#3
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,900 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 327,324 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.