↓ Skip to main content

Lung disease in indigenous children

Overview of attention for article published in Paediatric Respiratory Reviews, December 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
64 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
Lung disease in indigenous children
Published in
Paediatric Respiratory Reviews, December 2014
DOI 10.1016/j.prrv.2014.04.016
Pubmed ID
Authors

A.B. Chang, N. Brown, M. Toombs, R.L. Marsh, G.J. Redding

Abstract

Children in indigenous populations have substantially higher respiratory morbidity than non-indigenous children. Indigenous children have more frequent respiratory infections that are, more severe and, associated with long-term sequelae. Post-infectious sequelae such as chronic suppurative lung disease and bronchiectasis are especially prevalent among indigenous groups and have lifelong impact on lung function. Also, although estimates of asthma prevalence among indigenous children are similar to non-indigenous groups the morbidity of asthma is higher in indigenous children. To reduce the morbidity of respiratory illness, best-practice medicine is essential in addition to improving socio-economic factors, (eg household crowding), tobacco smoke exposure, and access to health care and illness prevention programs that likely contribute to these issues. Although each indigenous group may have unique health beliefs and interfaces with modern health care, a culturally sensitive and community-based comprehensive care system of preventive and long term care can improve outcomes for all these conditions. This article focuses on common respiratory conditions encountered by indigenous children living in affluent countries where data is available.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 64 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Malaysia 1 2%
Japan 1 2%
United States 1 2%
South Africa 1 2%
Unknown 60 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 19%
Researcher 8 13%
Student > Bachelor 8 13%
Other 6 9%
Student > Postgraduate 5 8%
Other 17 27%
Unknown 8 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 31 48%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 9%
Social Sciences 4 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 5%
Environmental Science 2 3%
Other 5 8%
Unknown 13 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 25 June 2014.
All research outputs
#10,672,576
of 12,034,576 outputs
Outputs from Paediatric Respiratory Reviews
#309
of 426 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#159,188
of 193,742 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Paediatric Respiratory Reviews
#8
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,034,576 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 426 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.4. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 193,742 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.