↓ Skip to main content

Grandmothers’ perspectives on the changing context of health in India

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Research Notes, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
44 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
Grandmothers’ perspectives on the changing context of health in India
Published in
BMC Research Notes, July 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13104-017-2583-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Solveig A. Cunningham, Susannah D. Gloor, Shailaja S. Patil

Abstract

The prevalence of obesity and other chronic diseases is increasing in India and around the world. As globalization and social changes are believed to be at the root of these epidemiological changes, these factors must be better understood. This study engaged older adults to gain an important perspective on globalization and health. A free-list instrument and a structured survey were developed and used to gather data on changes in diet, activity, and women's roles from ten grandmothers in rural India. Grandmothers indicated that household chores and food preparation are less labor-intensive and time-consuming due to mechanization and the availability of prepared foods than a generation earlier. Families are more often eating food out, bringing prepared food home, and using ready-made food mixes; adolescents are continuing to eat meals at home, but now snack with friends outside the home more frequently. Using both a free-list instrument and a structured survey, grandmothers were able to provide insights about the changing context of dietary patterns and family roles arising with globalization that may be contributing to the rise in chronic disease.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 44 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 25%
Researcher 6 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 14%
Other 3 7%
Lecturer 3 7%
Other 7 16%
Unknown 8 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 18%
Social Sciences 4 9%
Psychology 3 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 5%
Other 7 16%
Unknown 10 23%
Attention Score in Context

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 25 July 2017.
All research outputs
#18,562,247
of 22,990,068 outputs
Outputs from BMC Research Notes
#3,037
of 4,284 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#239,502
of 312,998 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Research Notes
#89
of 136 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,990,068 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 4,284 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% 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 312,998 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 136 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.