↓ Skip to main content

Can food vouchers improve nutrition and reduce health inequalities in low-income mothers and young children: a multi-method evaluation of the experiences of beneficiaries and practitioners of the…

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, February 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
policy
4 policy sources
twitter
34 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
67 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
359 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
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
Can food vouchers improve nutrition and reduce health inequalities in low-income mothers and young children: a multi-method evaluation of the experiences of beneficiaries and practitioners of the Healthy Start programme in England
Published in
BMC Public Health, February 2014
DOI 10.1186/1471-2458-14-148
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alison McFadden, Josephine M Green, Victoria Williams, Jenny McLeish, Felicia McCormick, Julia Fox-Rushby, Mary J Renfrew

Abstract

Good nutrition is important during pregnancy, breastfeeding and early life to optimise the health of women and children. It is difficult for low-income families to prioritise spending on healthy food. Healthy Start is a targeted United Kingdom (UK) food subsidy programme that gives vouchers for fruit, vegetables, milk, and vitamins to low-income families. This paper reports an evaluation of Healthy Start from the perspectives of women and health practitioners.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 34 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 359 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 <1%
Ecuador 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 354 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 69 19%
Student > Bachelor 52 14%
Researcher 43 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 31 9%
Student > Postgraduate 19 5%
Other 59 16%
Unknown 86 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 72 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 60 17%
Social Sciences 42 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 23 6%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 15 4%
Other 48 13%
Unknown 99 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 68. 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 13 December 2022.
All research outputs
#603,856
of 24,716,872 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#576
of 16,373 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,563
of 324,532 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#8
of 258 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,716,872 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 16,373 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 324,532 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 258 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.