↓ Skip to main content

Paradox lost on the U.S.-Mexico border: U.S. Latinas and cesarean rates

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
5 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
20 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
Paradox lost on the U.S.-Mexico border: U.S. Latinas and cesarean rates
Published in
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, April 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12884-018-1701-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Theresa Morris, Amanda Gomez, Miriam Naiman-Sessions, Christine H. Morton

Abstract

We apply Intersectional Theory to examine how compounded disadvantage affects the odds of women having a cesarean in U.S.-Mexico border hospitals and in non-border hospitals. We define U.S. Latinas with compounded disadvantage as those who have neither a college education nor private health insurance. Analyzing quantitative and qualitative data from Childbirth Connection's Listening to Mothers III Survey, we find that, consistent with the notion of the Latinx Health Paradox, compounded disadvantage serves as a protective buffer and decreases the odds of cesarean among women in non-border hospitals. However, the Latinx Health Paradox is absent on the border. Our data show that women with compounded disadvantage who give birth on the border have significantly higher odds of a cesarean compared to women without such disadvantage. Further, women with compounded disadvantage who give birth in border hospitals report receiving insufficient prenatal, pregnancy, and postpartum information, providing a direction for future research to explain the border disparity in cesareans.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 tweeters 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 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 20 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Professor 3 15%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 15%
Student > Bachelor 3 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 10%
Researcher 2 10%
Other 7 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 5 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 15%
Psychology 1 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 5 25%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 2018.
All research outputs
#1,281,122
of 12,799,521 outputs
Outputs from BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
#367
of 2,332 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#47,709
of 273,636 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,799,521 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,332 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 273,636 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 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 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