| Title |
Industrial Food Animal Production and Community Health
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Current Environmental Health Reports, July 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s40572-015-0061-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Joan A. Casey, Brent F. Kim, Jesper Larsen, Lance B. Price, Keeve E. Nachman |
| Abstract |
Industrial food animal production (IFAP) is a source of environmental microbial and chemical hazards. A growing body of literature suggests that populations living near these operations and manure-applied crop fields are at elevated risk for several health outcomes. We reviewed the literature published since 2000 and identified four health outcomes consistently and positively associated with living near IFAP: respiratory outcomes, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), Q fever, and stress/mood. We found moderate evidence of an association of IFAP with quality of life and limited evidence of an association with cognitive impairment, Clostridium difficile, Enterococcus, birth outcomes, and hypertension. Distance-based exposure metrics were used by 17/33 studies reviewed. Future work should investigate exposure through drinking water and must improve exposure assessment with direct environmental sampling, modeling, and high-resolution DNA typing methods. Investigators should not limit study to high-profile pathogens like MRSA but include a broader range of pathogens, as well as other disease outcomes. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 156 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 156 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 28 | 18% |
| Researcher | 24 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 15 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 12 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 11 | 7% |
| Other | 19 | 12% |
| Unknown | 47 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 29 | 19% |
| Environmental Science | 18 | 12% |
| Social Sciences | 12 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 9 | 6% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 8 | 5% |
| Other | 27 | 17% |
| Unknown | 53 | 34% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 71. 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 09 August 2021.
All research outputs
#538,940
of 23,573,357 outputs
Outputs from Current Environmental Health Reports
#21
of 331 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,289
of 263,869 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Environmental Health Reports
#2
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,573,357 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 331 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 263,869 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 11 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 90% of its contemporaries.