| Title |
Child labour and health: a systematic review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal of Public Health, January 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00038-018-1075-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Brice Lionel Batomen Kuimi, Oduro Oppong-Nkrumah, Jay Kaufman, Jose Ignacio Nazif-Munoz, Arijit Nandi |
| Abstract |
This study aimed to synthesise the available knowledge, identify unexplored areas and discuss general limits of the published evidence. We focused on outcomes commonly hypothesised to be affected by child labour: nutritional status, harmful exposures and injuries. Four electronic databases (EMBASE, MEDLINE, Scopus, ISI Web of Science) were searched in November 2017. All articles published since 1996, without restrictions on language, were considered for inclusion. Out of the 1090 abstracts initially identified by the search, 78 articles were selected for inclusion and reviewed. Most of the studies were conducted in Asia and South America, and only a third of them compared working children to a control group of non-working children. Child labour appears to be associated with poor nutritional status, diseases due to harmful exposures, and a higher prevalence of injuries. Despite evidence for a negative relation between child work and health, the cross-sectional design of most studies limits the causal interpretation of existing findings. More rigorous observational studies are needed to confirm and better quantify these associations. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 2 | 33% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 3 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 93 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 93 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 16 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 12 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 10 | 11% |
| Researcher | 8 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 6 | 6% |
| Other | 12 | 13% |
| Unknown | 29 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 14 | 15% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 13% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 8 | 9% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 7 | 8% |
| Psychology | 5 | 5% |
| Other | 14 | 15% |
| Unknown | 33 | 35% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 05 July 2019.
All research outputs
#7,782,070
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Public Health
#788
of 1,900 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#146,498
of 450,862 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Public Health
#11
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
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 gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% 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 450,862 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.