↓ Skip to main content

Trade and investment liberalization and Asia’s noncommunicable disease epidemic: a synthesis of data and existing literature

Overview of attention for article published in Globalization and Health, September 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
136 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
Trade and investment liberalization and Asia’s noncommunicable disease epidemic: a synthesis of data and existing literature
Published in
Globalization and Health, September 2014
DOI 10.1186/s12992-014-0066-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Phillip Baker, Adrian Kay, Helen Walls

Abstract

Trade and investment liberalization (trade liberalization) can promote or harm health. Undoubtedly it has contributed, although unevenly, to Asia's social and economic development over recent decades with resultant gains in life expectancy and living standards. In the absence of public health protections, however, it is also a significant upstream driver of non-communicable diseases (NCDs) including cardiovascular disease, cancer and diabetes through facilitating increased consumption of the 'risk commodities' tobacco, alcohol and ultra-processed foods, and by constraining access to NCD medicines. In this paper we describe the NCD burden in Asian countries, trends in risk commodity consumption and the processes by which trade liberalization has occurred in the region and contributed to these trends. We further establish pressing questions for future research on strengthening regulatory capacity to address trade liberalization impacts on risk commodity consumption and health.

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 136 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 135 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 33 24%
Student > Bachelor 21 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 15%
Researcher 11 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 7%
Other 19 14%
Unknown 22 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 25 18%
Social Sciences 23 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 12%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 11 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 8 6%
Other 20 15%
Unknown 33 24%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 01 January 2017.
All research outputs
#3,220,634
of 12,077,989 outputs
Outputs from Globalization and Health
#406
of 612 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#64,469
of 222,686 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Globalization and Health
#13
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,077,989 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 612 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.1. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% 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 222,686 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
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 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.