| Title |
The Impact of WIC on Birth Outcomes: New Evidence from South Carolina
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Maternal and Child Health Journal, March 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10995-016-1951-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Lyudmyla Sonchak |
| Abstract |
Objectives To investigate the impact of the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC) on a variety of infant health outcomes using recent South Carolina Vital Statistics data (2004-2012). Methods To account for non-random WIC participation, the study relies on a maternal fixed effects estimation, due to the availability of unique maternally linked data. Results The results indicate that WIC participation is associated with an increase in birth weight and length of gestation, decrease in the probability of low birth weight, prematurity, and Neonatal Intensive Care Unit admission. Additionally, addressing gestational bias and accounting for the length of gestation, WIC participation is associated with a decrease in the probability of delivering a low weight infant and a small for gestational age infant among black mothers. Conclusions for Practice Accounting for non-random program participation, the study documents a large improvement in birth outcomes among infants of WIC participating mothers. Even in the context of somewhat restrictive gestation-adjusted specification, the positive impact of WIC remains within the subsample of black mothers. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 | 7 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 86% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 14% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 110 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 110 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 19 | 17% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 13 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 10% |
| Researcher | 10 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 5% |
| Other | 18 | 16% |
| Unknown | 33 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 19 | 17% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 19 | 17% |
| Social Sciences | 16 | 15% |
| Psychology | 6 | 5% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 6 | 5% |
| Unknown | 42 | 38% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 01 February 2020.
All research outputs
#3,422,133
of 23,906,448 outputs
Outputs from Maternal and Child Health Journal
#348
of 2,039 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#54,910
of 303,122 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Maternal and Child Health Journal
#9
of 53 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,906,448 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,039 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 303,122 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 53 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.