| Title |
Socioeconomic inequalities in health: individual or area level; does it matter?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Public Health, March 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2458-12-171 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
B Galobardes |
| Abstract |
In the last decades we have accumulated substantial knowledge about the risk factors that lead to cardiovascular disease. Despite this progress, in this issue of BMC Public Health we learn that little improvement has been made towards reducing inequalities in these risk factors in the UK. Characterizing changes over time can help understanding the mechanisms that underpin health inequalities. These pathways are complex and operate at different levels, from the individual to the context where someone lives. In this commentary I highlight some of the issues and uncertainties that may arise when individual and area level measures are used indistinctively. |
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 Arab Emirates | 1 | 33% |
| Canada | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 67% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 56 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 2% |
| United States | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 54 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 21% |
| Researcher | 11 | 20% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 7% |
| Professor | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 15 | 27% |
| Unknown | 5 | 9% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 20 | 36% |
| Social Sciences | 11 | 20% |
| Psychology | 3 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 5% |
| Environmental Science | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 8 | 14% |
| Unknown | 9 | 16% |
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 2012.
All research outputs
#14,143,536
of 22,663,969 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#10,254
of 14,744 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#92,550
of 156,267 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#133
of 193 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,663,969 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 14,744 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.9. 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 156,267 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 193 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.