↓ Skip to main content

Health inequalities after austerity in Greece

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal for Equity in Health, May 2016
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 (90th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
23 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
61 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
153 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
Health inequalities after austerity in Greece
Published in
International Journal for Equity in Health, May 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12939-016-0374-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marina Karanikolos, Alexander Kentikelenis

Abstract

Since the beginning of economic crisis, Greece has been experiencing unprecedented levels of unemployment and profound cuts to public budgets. Health and welfare sectors were subject to severe austerity measures, which have endangered provision of as well as access to services, potentially widening health inequality gap. European Union Statistics on Income and Living Conditions data show that the proportion of individuals on low incomes reporting unmet medical need due to cost doubled from 7 % in 2008 to 13.9 % in 2013, while the relative gap in access to care between the richest and poorest population groups increased almost ten-fold. In addition, austerity cuts have affected other vulnerable groups, such as undocumented migrants and injecting drug users. Steps have been taken in attempt to mitigate the impact of the austerity, however addressing the growing health inequality gap will require persistent effort of the country's leadership for years to come.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 23 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 153 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 153 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 39 25%
Researcher 20 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 12%
Student > Bachelor 10 7%
Other 9 6%
Other 21 14%
Unknown 35 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 30 20%
Social Sciences 25 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 17 11%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 13 8%
Psychology 5 3%
Other 15 10%
Unknown 48 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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 July 2017.
All research outputs
#1,762,139
of 22,875,477 outputs
Outputs from International Journal for Equity in Health
#268
of 1,910 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,739
of 338,929 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal for Equity in Health
#9
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,875,477 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,910 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 338,929 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 37 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.