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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Evolution of educational inequalities in site-specific cancer mortality among Belgian men between the 1990s and 2000s using a “fundamental cause” perspective
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Cancer, July 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12885-017-3461-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Katrien Vanthomme, Hadewijch Vandenheede, Paulien Hagedoorn, Sylvie Gadeyne |
| Abstract |
According to the "fundamental cause" theory, emerging knowledge on health-enhancing behaviours and technologies results in health disparities. This study aims to assess (trends in) educational inequalities in site-specific cancer mortality in Belgian men in the 1990s and the 2000s using this framework. Data were derived from record linkage between the Belgian censuses of 1991 and 2001 and register data on mortality. The study population comprised all Belgian men aged 50-79 years during follow-up. Both absolute and relative inequality measures have been calculated. Despite an overall downward trend in cancer mortality, educational differences are observed for the majority of cancer sites in the 2000s. Generally, inequalities are largest for mortality from preventable cancers. Trends over time in inequalities are rather stable compared with the 1990s. Educational differences in site-specific cancer mortality persist in the 2000s in Belgium, mainly for cancers related to behavioural change and medical interventions. Policy efforts focussing on behavioural change and healthcare utilization remain crucial in order to tackle these increasing inequalities. |
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 | 7 | 17% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 4 | 10% |
| Unknown | 12 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 11 | 27% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 20% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 12% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 2% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 14 | 34% |
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 06 July 2017.
All research outputs
#20,433,667
of 22,986,950 outputs
Outputs from BMC Cancer
#6,527
of 8,353 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#273,191
of 313,312 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Cancer
#103
of 123 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,986,950 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,353 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 313,312 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 123 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.