| Title |
Socioeconomic Disparities in Health Risk Behavior Clusterings Among Korean Adolescents
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, May 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s12529-018-9723-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Boram Lee, Dong-Chul Seo |
| Abstract |
This study aims to investigate the socioeconomic disparities in health risk behavior clusterings among Korean adolescents and to assess the mediating role of stress on this association. We analyzed the 2015 Korean Youth Risk Behavior Survey, a nationally representative sample of Korean middle and high school students aged 12-18 years (N = 68,043). The co-occurrence of multiple health risk behaviors (i.e., cigarette smoking, drinking, and unprotected sex) was used to operationalize health risk behavior clusterings that ranged from zero to three. Ordinal and multinomial logistic regressions were conducted to examine socioeconomic disparities in health risk behavior clusterings and mediating effect of perceived stress between socioeconomic status (SES) and health risk behaviors. When SES was grouped into five groups, adolescents in the lowest SES [adjusted odds ratio (AOR) = 2.15, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.90-2.44] and the highest SES (AOR = 1.29, 95% CI = 1.18-1.40) showed a higher likelihood of risk behavior clusterings than any other SES groups. Stress partially mediated the relationship between SES and co-occurrence of multiple health risk behaviors while accounting for their demographic characteristics. Adolescents in the lowest and highest SES reported higher stress than other SES groups, which, in turn, was associated with the co-occurrence of multiple health risk behaviors. The results suggest that perceived stress level partly explains why affluent as well as low-SES adolescents engage in multiple risk behaviors. The findings also discourage use of a linear approach in socioeconomic disparity investigation in relation to adolescent health behaviors. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 40 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 8 | 20% |
| Unknown | 17 | 43% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 6 | 15% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 13% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 10% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 8% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 3 | 8% |
| Unknown | 18 | 45% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 May 2018.
All research outputs
#5,816,262
of 23,047,237 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Behavioral Medicine
#288
of 906 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#100,573
of 326,669 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Behavioral Medicine
#8
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,047,237 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 906 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.2. 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 326,669 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 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.