↓ Skip to main content

The influence of gender equality policies on gender inequalities in health in Europe

Overview of attention for article published in Social Science & Medicine, July 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
policy
2 policy sources
twitter
39 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
3 Google+ users
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
78 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
214 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
The influence of gender equality policies on gender inequalities in health in Europe
Published in
Social Science & Medicine, July 2014
DOI 10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.07.018
Pubmed ID
Authors

Laia Palència, Davide Malmusi, Deborah De Moortel, Lucía Artazcoz, Mona Backhans, Christophe Vanroelen, Carme Borrell

Abstract

Few studies have addressed the effect of gender policies on women's health and gender inequalities in health. This study aims to analyse the relationship between the orientation of public gender equality policies and gender inequalities in health in European countries, and whether this relationship is mediated by gender equality at country level or by other individual social determinants of health. A multilevel cross-sectional study was performed using individual-level data extracted from the European Social Survey 2010. The study sample consisted of 23,782 men and 28,655 women from 26 European countries. The dependent variable was self-perceived health. Individual independent variables were gender, age, immigrant status, educational level, partner status and employment status. The main contextual independent variable was a modification of Korpi's typology of family policy models (Dual-earner, Traditional-Central, Traditional-Southern, Market-oriented and Contradictory). Other contextual variables were the Gender Empowerment Measure (GEM), to measure country-level gender equality, and the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). For each country and country typology the prevalence of fair/poor health by gender was calculated and prevalence ratios (PR, women compared to men) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were computed. Multilevel robust Poisson regression models were fitted. Women had poorer self-perceived health than men in countries with traditional family policies (PR = 1.13, 95%CI: 1.07-1.21 in Traditional-Central and PR = 1.27, 95%CI: 1.19-1.35 in Traditional-Southern) and in Contradictory countries (PR = 1.08, 95%CI: 1.05-1.11). In multilevel models, only gender inequalities in Traditional-Southern countries were significantly higher than those in Dual-earner countries. Gender inequalities in self-perceived health were higher, women reporting worse self-perceived health than men, in countries with family policies that were less oriented to gender equality (especially in the Traditional-Southern country-group). This was partially explained by gender inequalities in the individual social determinants of health but not by GEM or GDP.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 39 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 214 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 2 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Unknown 211 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 41 19%
Student > Master 33 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 15 7%
Student > Bachelor 15 7%
Other 39 18%
Unknown 48 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 55 26%
Medicine and Dentistry 31 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 17 8%
Psychology 11 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 9 4%
Other 28 13%
Unknown 63 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 61. 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 27 June 2023.
All research outputs
#700,721
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Social Science & Medicine
#621
of 11,875 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,527
of 240,373 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Social Science & Medicine
#11
of 149 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,875 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 240,373 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 149 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.