| Title |
The Hunger–Obesity Paradox: Obesity in the Homeless
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Urban Health, May 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11524-012-9708-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Katherine A. Koh, Jessica S. Hoy, James J. O’Connell, Paul Montgomery |
| Abstract |
Despite stereotypes of the homeless population as underweight, the literature lacks a rigorous analysis of weight status in homeless adults. The purpose of this study is to present the body mass index (BMI) distribution in a large adult homeless population and to compare this distribution to the non-homeless population in the United States. Demographic, BMI, and socioeconomic variables from patients seen in 2007-2008 were collected from the Boston Health Care for the Homeless Program (BHCHP). This population was compared to non-homeless adults from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). Among 5,632 homeless adults, the mean BMI was 28.4 kg/m(2) and the prevalence of obesity was 32.3 %. Only 1.6 % of homeless adults were underweight. Compared to mean BMI in NHANES (28.6 kg/m(2)), the difference was not significant in unadjusted analysis (p = 0.14). Adjusted analyses predicting BMI or likelihood of obesity also showed that the homeless had a weight distribution not statistically different from the general population. Although underweight has been traditionally associated with homelessness, this study suggests that obesity may be the new malnutrition of the homeless in the United States. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 35 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 | 13 | 37% |
| Spain | 4 | 11% |
| Germany | 1 | 3% |
| Congo, The Democratic Republic of the | 1 | 3% |
| Chile | 1 | 3% |
| Canada | 1 | 3% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 13 | 37% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 29 | 83% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 5 | 14% |
| Scientists | 1 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 133 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 2 | 2% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 130 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 29 | 22% |
| Student > Master | 21 | 16% |
| Researcher | 15 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 10% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 8 | 6% |
| Other | 25 | 19% |
| Unknown | 22 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 34 | 26% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 18 | 14% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 16 | 12% |
| Social Sciences | 13 | 10% |
| Psychology | 7 | 5% |
| Other | 15 | 11% |
| Unknown | 30 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 38. 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 23 January 2024.
All research outputs
#1,105,008
of 25,959,914 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Urban Health
#188
of 1,728 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,846
of 181,965 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Urban Health
#6
of 50 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,959,914 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,728 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 181,965 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 50 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.