↓ Skip to main content

Social inequality and children’s health in Africa: a cross sectional study

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal for Equity in Health, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (54th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
62 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
Social inequality and children’s health in Africa: a cross sectional study
Published in
International Journal for Equity in Health, June 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12939-016-0372-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tim B. Heaton, Benjamin Crookston, Hayley Pierce, Acheampong Yaw Amoateng

Abstract

This study examines socioeconomic inequality in children's health and factors that moderate this inequality. Socioeconomic measures include household wealth, maternal education and urban/rural area of residence. Moderating factors include reproductive behavior, access to health care, time, economic development, health expenditures and foreign aid. Data are taken from Demographic and Health Surveys conducted between 2003 and 2012 in 26 African countries. Birth spacing, skilled birth attendants, economic development and greater per capita health expenditures benefit the children of disadvantaged mothers, but the wealthy benefit more from the services of a skilled birth attendant and from higher per capita expenditure on health. Some health behavior and policy changeswould reduce social inequality, but the wealthy benefit more than the poor from provision of health services.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 62 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 62 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 23 37%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 13%
Researcher 7 11%
Student > Postgraduate 6 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 8%
Other 8 13%
Unknown 5 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 13 21%
Social Sciences 12 19%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 7 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 5%
Other 11 18%
Unknown 10 16%

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 27 June 2016.
All research outputs
#4,752,160
of 9,653,209 outputs
Outputs from International Journal for Equity in Health
#530
of 824 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#119,878
of 275,247 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal for Equity in Health
#33
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 9,653,209 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 824 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. 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 275,247 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 54% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 46 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.