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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Investigating the Relationship between Socially-Assigned Ethnicity, Racial Discrimination and Health Advantage in New Zealand
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PLOS ONE, December 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1371/journal.pone.0084039 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Donna M. Cormack, Ricci B. Harris, James Stanley |
| Abstract |
While evidence of the contribution of racial discrimination to ethnic health disparities has increased significantly, there has been less research examining relationships between ascribed racial/ethnic categories and health. It has been hypothesized that in racially-stratified societies being assigned as belonging to the dominant racial/ethnic group may be associated with health advantage. This study aimed to investigate associations between socially-assigned ethnicity, self-identified ethnicity, and health, and to consider the role of self-reported experience of racial discrimination in any relationships between socially-assigned ethnicity and health. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 | 50% |
| New Zealand | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 75% |
| Scientists | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| New Zealand | 1 | 1% |
| United States | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 65 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 16 | 24% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 8 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 9% |
| Other | 6 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 9% |
| Other | 13 | 19% |
| Unknown | 12 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 15 | 22% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 12 | 18% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 18% |
| Psychology | 3 | 4% |
| Arts and Humanities | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 8 | 12% |
| Unknown | 14 | 21% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 April 2020.
All research outputs
#2,939,303
of 24,742,536 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#36,558
of 214,156 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,470
of 316,457 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#942
of 5,429 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,742,536 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 214,156 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.6. 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 316,457 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5,429 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.