| Title |
Decomposing socioeconomic inequalities in the use of preventive eye screening services among individuals with diabetes in Korea
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal of Public Health, March 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00038-016-0804-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jongnam Hwang |
| Abstract |
The aim of this study was to assess the socioeconomic inequalities in the use of preventive eye screening services among individuals with diabetes in Korea. Using nationally representative survey data, the concentration index (CI) and decomposition of the CI were used to capture and quantify income-related inequalities. The results show income-related inequality in the use of eye screening services among individuals with diabetes, suggesting that services were concentrated among individuals with higher incomes. After adjusting for need factors, such as sex, age and self-rated health, the inequality still persisted as observed horizontal inequity in the services, indicating that unequal care was provided for equal need. The decomposition approach revealed that the largest contributions to the observed inequality were higher education and higher income levels. Having private insurance and residing in non-Seoul metro areas also contributed to the observed pro-rich inequality. These findings suggest that income- and education-related barriers to the use of preventive eye screening services for individuals with diabetes should be targeted for removal at the national level to achieve the goal of equal care for equal need in diabetes management. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Denmark | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 26 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 3 | 12% |
| Researcher | 3 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 8% |
| Other | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 12 | 46% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 15% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 4 | 15% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 12% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 4% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 12 | 46% |
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 17 March 2016.
All research outputs
#16,722,190
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Public Health
#1,359
of 1,900 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#182,290
of 314,938 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Public Health
#26
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,900 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.8. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% 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 314,938 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.