| Title |
Disability Among Native-born and Foreign-born Blacks in the United States
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Demography, March 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s13524-010-0008-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Irma T. Elo, Neil K. Mehta, Cheng Huang |
| Abstract |
Using the 5% Public Use Micro Data Sample (PUMS) from the 2000 U.S. census, we examine differences in disability among eight black subgroups distinguished by place of birth and Hispanic ethnicity. We found that all foreign-born subgroups reported lower levels of physical activity limitations and personal care limitations than native-born blacks. Immigrants from Africa reported lowest levels of disability, followed by non-Hispanic immigrants from the Caribbean. Sociodemographic characteristics and timing of immigration explained the differences between these two groups. The foreign-born health advantage was most evident among the least-educated except among immigrants from Europe/Canada, who also reported the highest levels of disability among the foreign-born. Hispanic identification was associated with poorer health among both native-born and foreign-born blacks. |
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 | 2 | 67% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 101 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 2% |
| Unknown | 99 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 31 | 31% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 12 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 10 | 10% |
| Researcher | 9 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 7% |
| Other | 17 | 17% |
| Unknown | 15 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 38 | 38% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 9 | 9% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 9% |
| Psychology | 6 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 15 | 15% |
| Unknown | 20 | 20% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 07 October 2019.
All research outputs
#6,981,937
of 25,837,817 outputs
Outputs from Demography
#1,319
of 2,036 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#37,713
of 123,390 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Demography
#9
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,837,817 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,036 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 27.8. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% 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 123,390 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.