↓ Skip to main content

Relationship between socioeconomic status and gastrointestinal infections in developed countries: a systematic review protocol

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
38 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
Relationship between socioeconomic status and gastrointestinal infections in developed countries: a systematic review protocol
Published in
Systematic Reviews, January 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13643-016-0187-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tanith C. Rose, Natalie Adams, David C. Taylor-Robinson, Benjamin Barr, Jeremy Hawker, Sarah O’Brien, Mara Violato, Margaret Whitehead

Abstract

The association between low socioeconomic status (SES) and poor health is well documented in the existing literature. Nonetheless, evidence on the relationship between SES and gastrointestinal (GI) infections is limited, and the mechanisms underlying this relationship are not well understood with published studies pointing to conflicting results. This review aims to identify studies that investigate the relationship between SES and GI infections in developed countries, in order to assess the direction of the association and explore possible explanations for any differences in the risk, incidence or prevalence of GI infections across socioeconomic groups. Three systematic methods will be used to identify relevant literature: electronic database, reference list and grey literature searching. The databases MEDLINE, Scopus and Web of Science Core Collection will be searched using a broad range of search terms. Screening of the results will be performed by two reviewers using pre-defined inclusion and exclusion criteria. The reference lists of included studies will be searched, and Google will be used to identify grey literature. Observational studies reporting quantitative results on the prevalence or incidence of any symptomatic GI infections by SES, in a representative population sample from a member country of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), will be included. Data will be extracted using a standardised form. Study quality will be assessed using the Liverpool University Quality Assessment Tools (LQAT). A narrative synthesis will be performed including tabulation of studies for comparison. This systematic review will consolidate the existing knowledge on the relationship between SES and GI infections. The results will help to identify gaps in the literature and will therefore provide an evidence base for future empirical studies to deepen the understanding of the relationship, including effective study design and appropriate data analysis methods. Ultimately, gaining insight into this relationship will help to inform policies to reduce any health inequalities identified. PROSPERO CRD42015027231.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 38 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 16%
Student > Bachelor 6 16%
Researcher 4 11%
Student > Postgraduate 3 8%
Other 8 21%
Unknown 4 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 21%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 16%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 13%
Social Sciences 5 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 8%
Other 5 13%
Unknown 6 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 09 February 2016.
All research outputs
#13,965,269
of 22,844,985 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#1,476
of 1,999 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#200,236
of 394,777 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#46
of 74 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,844,985 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,999 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.7. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% 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 394,777 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 74 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.