↓ Skip to main content

Underutilized and Under Threat: Environmental Policy as a Tool to Address Diabetes Risk

Overview of attention for article published in Current Diabetes Reports, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (65th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
52 Mendeley
Title
Underutilized and Under Threat: Environmental Policy as a Tool to Address Diabetes Risk
Published in
Current Diabetes Reports, March 2018
DOI 10.1007/s11892-018-0993-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sabina Shaikh, Jyotsna S. Jagai, Colette Ashley, Shuhan Zhou, Robert M. Sargis

Abstract

Diabetes is a burgeoning threat to public health in the USA. Importantly, the burden of diabetes is not equally borne across society with marked disparities based on geography, race/ethnicity, and income. The etiology of global and population-specific diabetes risk remains incompletely understood; however, evidence linking environmental toxicants acting as endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs), such as particulate matter and arsenic, with diabetes suggests that environmental policies could play an important role in diabetes risk reduction. Evidence suggests that disproportionate exposures to EDCs may contribute to subgroup-specific diabetes risk; however, no federal policies regulate EDCs linked to diabetes based upon diabetogenic potential. Nevertheless, analyses of European Union data indicate that such regulation could reduce diabetes-associated costs and disease burden. Federal laws only regulate EDCs indirectly. The accumulating evidence linking these chemicals with diabetes risk should encourage policymakers to adopt stricter environmental standards that consider both health and economic impacts.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 52 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 19%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 8%
Student > Postgraduate 4 8%
Student > Master 3 6%
Other 7 13%
Unknown 19 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 12%
Social Sciences 3 6%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Other 8 15%
Unknown 24 46%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 14 August 2018.
All research outputs
#7,132,673
of 25,388,353 outputs
Outputs from Current Diabetes Reports
#349
of 1,050 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#114,517
of 336,706 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Diabetes Reports
#11
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,388,353 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,050 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% 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 336,706 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 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.