↓ Skip to main content

Does birth under-registration reduce childhood immunization? Evidence from the Dominican Republic

Overview of attention for article published in Health Economics Review, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
6 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
41 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
Does birth under-registration reduce childhood immunization? Evidence from the Dominican Republic
Published in
Health Economics Review, March 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13561-017-0149-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Steve Brito, Ana Corbacho, Rene Osorio

Abstract

The consequences of lacking birth certificates remain largely unexplored in the economic literature. We intend to fill this knowledge gap studying the effect of lacking birth certificates on immunization of children in the Dominican Republic. This is an interesting country because a significant number of children of Haitian descent face the consequences of lacking proper documentation. We use the distance to the civil registry office and the mother's document of identification as instrumental variables of the child's birth certificate. After controlling for distance to immunization services and other determinants, this paper finds that children between 0 and 59 months of age that do not have birth certificates are behind by nearly one vaccine (out of a total of nine) compared to those that have birth certificates.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 41 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 15%
Researcher 6 15%
Student > Master 6 15%
Other 5 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 5%
Other 5 12%
Unknown 11 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 9 22%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 12%
Social Sciences 2 5%
Decision Sciences 2 5%
Other 7 17%
Unknown 11 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 08 February 2019.
All research outputs
#3,974,229
of 22,961,203 outputs
Outputs from Health Economics Review
#67
of 430 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#71,023
of 309,217 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Economics Review
#3
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,961,203 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 430 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 309,217 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 7 of them.