↓ Skip to main content

Health literacy in a community with low levels of education: findings from Chakaria, a rural area of Bangladesh

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
37 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
194 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
Health literacy in a community with low levels of education: findings from Chakaria, a rural area of Bangladesh
Published in
BMC Public Health, February 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12889-017-4097-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Susmita Das, Mohammad Nahid Mia, Syed Manzoor Ahmed Hanifi, Shahidul Hoque, Abbas Bhuiya

Abstract

Health literacy (HL) helps individuals to make effective use of available health services. In low-income countries such as Bangladesh, the less than optimum use of services could be due to low levels of HL. Bangladesh's health service delivery is pluralistic with a mix of public, private and informally trained healthcare providers. Emphasis on HL has been inadequate. Thus, it is important to assess the levels of HL and service utilization patterns. The findings from this study aim to bridge the knowledge gap. The data for this study came from a cross-sectional survey carried out in September 2014, in Chakaria, a rural area in Bangladesh. A total of 1500 respondents were randomly selected from the population of 80,000 living in the Chakaria study area of icddr, b (International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research, Bangladesh). HL was assessed in terms of knowledge of existing health facilities and sources of information on health care, immunization, diabetes and hypertension. Descriptive and cross-tabular analyses were carried out. Chambers of the rural practitioners of allopathic medicine, commonly known as 'village doctors', were mentioned by 86% of the respondents as a known health service facility in their area, followed by two public sector community clinics (54.6%) and Union Health and Family Welfare Centres (28.6%). Major sources of information on childhood immunization were government health workers. Almost all of the respondents had heard about diabetes and hypertension (97.4% and 95.4%, respectively). The top three sources of information for diabetes were neighbours (85.7%), followed by relatives (27.9%) and MBBS (Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery) doctors (20.4%). For hypertension, the sources were neighbours (78.0%), followed by village doctors (38.2%), MBBS doctors (23.2%) and relatives (15%). The proportions of respondents who knew diabetes and hypertension control measures were 40.9% and 28.0%, respectively. More females knew about the control of diabetes (44.4% to 36.6%) and hypertension (31.1% to 24.2%) than males. A low level of HL in terms of modern health service facilities, diabetes and hypertension clearly indicated the need for a systematic HL programme. The relatively high levels of literacy concerning immunization show that it is possible to enhance HL in areas with low levels of education through systematic awareness-raising programmes, which could result in higher service coverage.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 194 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 194 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 31 16%
Researcher 18 9%
Student > Bachelor 16 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 7%
Other 11 6%
Other 44 23%
Unknown 61 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 42 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 26 13%
Social Sciences 19 10%
Psychology 6 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 2%
Other 25 13%
Unknown 72 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 07 September 2017.
All research outputs
#14,954,297
of 23,001,641 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#10,989
of 14,986 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#185,457
of 307,012 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#168
of 217 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,001,641 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,986 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.0. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% 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 307,012 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 217 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.