↓ Skip to main content

Poor Health Reporting? Using Anchoring Vignettes to Uncover Health Disparities by Wealth and Race

Overview of attention for article published in Demography, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
15 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
59 Mendeley
Title
Poor Health Reporting? Using Anchoring Vignettes to Uncover Health Disparities by Wealth and Race
Published in
Demography, September 2018
DOI 10.1007/s13524-018-0709-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Laura Rossouw, Teresa Bago d’Uva, Eddy van Doorslaer

Abstract

In spite of the wide disparities in wealth and in objective health measures like mortality, observed inequality by wealth in self-reported health appears to be nearly nonexistent in low- to middle-income settings. To determine the extent to which this is driven by reporting tendencies, we use anchoring vignettes to test and correct for reporting heterogeneity in health among elderly South Africans. Significant reporting differences across wealth groups are detected. Poorer individuals rate the same health state description more positively than richer individuals. Only after we correct for these differences does a significant and substantial health disadvantage of the poor emerge. We also find that health inequality and reporting heterogeneity are confounded by race. Within race groups-especially among black Africans and to a lesser degree among whites-heterogeneous reporting leads to an underestimation of health inequalities between richest and poorest. More surprisingly, we also show that the correction may go in the opposite direction: the apparent black African (vs. white) health disadvantage within the top wealth quintile almost disappears after we correct for reporting tendencies. Such large shifts and even reversals of health gradients have not been documented in previous studies on reporting bias in health inequalities. The evidence for South Africa, with its history of racial segregation and socioeconomic inequality, highlights that correction for reporting matters greatly when using self-reported health measures in countries with such wide disparities.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 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 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 59 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 25%
Student > Master 7 12%
Librarian 4 7%
Student > Bachelor 4 7%
Other 4 7%
Other 13 22%
Unknown 12 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 13 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 12%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 5 8%
Psychology 5 8%
Other 5 8%
Unknown 14 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 04 January 2019.
All research outputs
#3,078,447
of 24,040,389 outputs
Outputs from Demography
#741
of 1,978 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#62,786
of 344,388 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Demography
#23
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,040,389 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,978 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% 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 344,388 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.