↓ Skip to main content

Health in the 'hidden population' of people with low literacy. A systematic review of the literature

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, August 2010
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
117 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
234 Mendeley
citeulike
8 CiteULike
connotea
1 Connotea
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 in the 'hidden population' of people with low literacy. A systematic review of the literature
Published in
BMC Public Health, August 2010
DOI 10.1186/1471-2458-10-459
Pubmed ID
Authors

Phyllis Easton, Vikki A Entwistle, Brian Williams

Abstract

Much of the evidence of an association between low functional or health literacy and poor health comes from studies that include people who have various cognitive difficulties or who do not speak the dominant language of their society. Low functional or health literacy among these people is likely to be evident in spoken conversation. However, many other people can talk readily about health and other issues but have problems using written information. Consequently, their difficulties may be far less evident to healthcare professionals, creating a 'hidden population' whose functional or health literacy problems have different implications because they are less likely to be recognised and addressed.We aimed to review published research to investigate relationships between low functional or health literacy and health in working age adults who can converse in the dominant language but have difficulty with written language.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Denmark 2 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Ghana 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 227 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 47 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 25 11%
Other 23 10%
Student > Bachelor 21 9%
Researcher 19 8%
Other 58 25%
Unknown 41 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 60 26%
Social Sciences 32 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 30 13%
Psychology 16 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 3%
Other 35 15%
Unknown 53 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 11 March 2013.
All research outputs
#18,453,763
of 22,865,319 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#12,884
of 14,899 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#84,898
of 94,590 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#69
of 81 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,865,319 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,899 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.9. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% 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 94,590 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 81 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.