| Title |
An ecological analysis of food outlet density and prevalence of type II diabetes in South Carolina counties
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Public Health, January 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12889-015-2681-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Dana M. AlHasan, Jan Marie Eberth |
| Abstract |
Studies suggest that the built environment with high numbers of fast food restaurants and convenience stores and low numbers of super stores and grocery stores are related to obesity, type II diabetes mellitus, and other chronic diseases. Since few studies assess these relationships at the county level, we aim to examine fast food restaurant density, convenience store density, super store density, and grocery store density and prevalence of type II diabetes among counties in South Carolina. Pearson's correlation between four types of food outlet densities- fast food restaurants, convenience stores, super stores, and grocery stores- and prevalence of type II diabetes were computed. The relationship between each of these food outlet densities were mapped with prevalence of type II diabetes, and OLS regression analysis was completed adjusting for county-level rates of obesity, physical inactivity, density of recreation facilities, unemployment, households with no car and limited access to stores, education, and race. We showed a significant, negative relationship between fast food restaurant density and prevalence of type II diabetes, and a significant, positive relationship between convenience store density and prevalence of type II diabetes. In adjusted analysis, the food outlet densities (of any type) was not associated with prevalence of type II diabetes. This ecological analysis showed no associations between fast food restaurants, convenience stores, super stores, or grocery stores densities and the prevalence of type II diabetes. Consideration of environmental, social, and cultural determinants, as well as individual behaviors is needed in future research. |
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% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 2 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 109 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 109 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 22 | 20% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 14 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 13 | 12% |
| Researcher | 12 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 10% |
| Other | 16 | 15% |
| Unknown | 21 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 22 | 20% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 18 | 17% |
| Social Sciences | 16 | 15% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 10 | 9% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 13 | 12% |
| Unknown | 27 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 18 January 2016.
All research outputs
#14,931,785
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#10,719
of 15,466 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#211,557
of 398,618 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#182
of 265 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 15,466 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.3. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 398,618 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 265 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.