↓ Skip to main content

Comparison and Relative Utility of Inequality Measurements: As Applied to Scotland’s Child Dental Health

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, March 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
61 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Comparison and Relative Utility of Inequality Measurements: As Applied to Scotland’s Child Dental Health
Published in
PLOS ONE, March 2013
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0058593
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yvonne I. Blair, Alex D. McMahon, Lorna M. D. Macpherson

Abstract

This study compared and assessed the utility of tests of inequality on a series of very large population caries datasets. National cross-sectional caries datasets for Scotland's 5-year-olds in 1993/94 (n = 5,078); 1995/96 (n = 6,240); 1997/98 (n = 6,584); 1999/00 (n = 6,781); 2002/03 (n = 9,747); 2003/04 (n = 10,956); 2005/06 (n = 10,945) and 2007/08 (n = 12,067) were obtained. Outcomes were based on the d3mft metric (i.e. the number of decayed, missing and filled teeth). An area-based deprivation category (DepCat) measured the subjects' socioeconomic status (SES). Simple absolute and relative inequality, Odds Ratios and the Significant Caries Index (SIC) as advocated by the World Health Organization were calculated. The measures of complex inequality applied to data were: the Slope Index of Inequality (absolute) and a variety of relative inequality tests i.e. Gini coefficient; Relative Index of Inequality; concentration curve; Koolman & Doorslaer's transformed Concentration Index; Receiver Operator Curve and Population Attributable Risk (PAR). Additional tests used were plots of SIC deciles (SIC(10)) and a Scottish Caries Inequality Metric (SCIM(10)). Over the period, mean d3mft improved from 3.1(95%CI 3.0-3.2) to 1.9(95%CI 1.8-1.9) and d3mft = 0% from 41.1(95%CI 39.8-42.3) to 58.3(95%CI 57.8-59.7). Absolute simple and complex inequality decreased. Relative simple and complex inequality remained comparatively stable. Our results support the use of the SII and RII to measure complex absolute and relative SES inequalities alongside additional tests of complex relative inequality such as PAR and Koolman and Doorslaer's transformed CI. The latter two have clear interpretations which may influence policy makers. Specialised dental metrics (i.e. SIC, SIC(10) and SCIM(10)) permit the exploration of other important inequalities not determined by SES, and could be applied to many other types of disease where ranking of morbidity is possible e.g. obesity. More generally, the approaches described may be applied to study patterns of health inequality affecting worldwide populations.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 61 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 3%
Unknown 59 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 20 33%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 8%
Professor 4 7%
Student > Postgraduate 4 7%
Other 9 15%
Unknown 9 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 29 48%
Social Sciences 4 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 5%
Other 7 11%
Unknown 11 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 26 March 2013.
All research outputs
#7,425,448
of 22,701,287 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#88,221
of 193,818 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#64,956
of 195,228 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#2,124
of 5,438 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,701,287 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 193,818 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.0. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% 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 195,228 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5,438 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.