| Title |
Racial/Ethnic Differences in Hormonally-Active Hair Product Use: A Plausible Risk Factor for Health Disparities
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health, May 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10903-011-9482-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Tamarra James-Todd, Ruby Senie, Mary Beth Terry |
| Abstract |
Estrogen and endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) that are associated with several health outcomes have been found in hair products. We evaluated the proportion, frequency, duration, and content of hair products in a racially/ethnically diverse population. We recruited n = 301 African-American, African-Caribbean, Hispanic, and white women from the New York metropolitan area. We collected data on hair oil, lotion, leave-in conditioner, root stimulator, perm, and other product use. Estrogen and EDC information was collected from commonly used hair products' labels (used by >3% of population). African-American and African-Caribbean women were more likely to use all types of hair products compared to white women (P < 0.0001). Among hair product users, frequency varied significantly by race/ethnicity, but not duration. More African-Americans (49.4%) and African-Caribbeans (26.4%) used products containing placenta or EDCs compared to whites (7.7%). African-American and African-Caribbean women were more likely to be exposed to hormonally-active chemicals in hair products. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 63 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 62 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 10 | 16% |
| Researcher | 8 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 10 | 16% |
| Unknown | 17 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 19% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 11% |
| Social Sciences | 6 | 10% |
| Environmental Science | 4 | 6% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 9 | 14% |
| Unknown | 23 | 37% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 62. 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 03 July 2021.
All research outputs
#626,301
of 23,867,274 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health
#26
of 1,261 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,159
of 113,562 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health
#1
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,867,274 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 1,261 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 113,562 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 98% 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.