↓ Skip to main content

Michigan Publishing

The weathering hypothesis and the health of African-American women and infants: evidence and speculations.

Overview of attention for article published in Ethnicity and Disease, January 1992
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#1 of 487)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
47 news outlets
blogs
4 blogs
twitter
249 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
1051 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
470 Mendeley
Title
The weathering hypothesis and the health of African-American women and infants: evidence and speculations.
Published in
Ethnicity and Disease, January 1992
Pubmed ID
Authors

A T Geronimus

Abstract

Observed variation between populations in fertility-timing distributions has been thought to contribute to infant mortality differentials. This hypothesis is based, in part, on the belief that the 20s through early 30s constitute "prime" childbearing ages that are low-risk relative to younger or older ages. However, when stratified by racial identification over the predominant first child-bearing ages, maternal age patterns of neonatal mortality vary between groups. Unlike non-Hispanic white infants, African-American infants with teen mothers experience a survival advantage relative to infants whose mothers are older. The black-white infant mortality differential is larger at older maternal ages than at younger ages. While African Americans and non-Hispanic whites differ on which maternal ages are associated with the lowest risk of neonatal mortality, within each population, first births are most frequent at its lowest-risk maternal ages. As a possible explanation for racial variation in maternal age patterns of births and birth outcomes, the "weathering hypothesis" is proposed: namely, that the health of African-American women may begin to deteriorate in early adulthood as a physical consequence of cumulative socioeconomic disadvantage.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 249 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 470 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 9 2%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Singapore 1 <1%
Unknown 459 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 112 24%
Researcher 66 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 60 13%
Student > Master 47 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 27 6%
Other 73 16%
Unknown 85 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 154 33%
Medicine and Dentistry 59 13%
Psychology 50 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 30 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 16 3%
Other 48 10%
Unknown 113 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 592. 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 12 April 2024.
All research outputs
#39,678
of 25,756,911 outputs
Outputs from Ethnicity and Disease
#1
of 487 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5
of 62,001 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ethnicity and Disease
#1
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,756,911 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 487 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 62,001 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them