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 |
A cross-sectional ecological study of spatial scale and geographic inequality in access to drinking-water and sanitation
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal for Equity in Health, November 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12939-014-0113-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Weiyu Yu, Robert ES Bain, Shawky Mansour, Jim A Wright |
| Abstract |
IntroductionMeasuring inequality in access to safe drinking-water and sanitation is proposed as a component of international monitoring following the expiry of the Millennium Development Goals. This study aims to evaluate the utility of census data in measuring geographic inequality in access to drinking-water and sanitation.MethodsSpatially referenced census data were acquired for Colombia, South Africa, Egypt, and Uganda, whilst non-spatially referenced census data were acquired for Kenya. Four variants of the dissimilarity index were used to estimate geographic inequality in access to both services using large and small area units in each country through a cross-sectional, ecological study.ResultsInequality was greatest for piped water in South Africa in 2001 (based on 53 areas (N) with a median population (MP) of 657,015; D¿=¿0.5599) and lowest for access to an improved water source in Uganda in2008 (N¿=¿56; MP¿=¿419,399; D¿=¿0.2801). For sanitation, inequality was greatest for those lacking any facility in Kenya in 2009 (N¿=¿158; MP¿=¿216,992; D¿=¿0.6981), and lowest for access to an improved facility in Uganda in 2002 (N¿=¿56; MP¿=¿341,954; D¿=¿0.3403). Although dissimilarity index values were greater for smaller areal units, when study countries were ranked in terms of inequality, these ranks remained unaffected by the choice of large or small areal units. International comparability was limited due to definitional and temporal differences between censuses.ConclusionsThis five-country study suggests that patterns of inequality for broad regional units do often reflect inequality in service access at a more local scale. This implies household surveys designed to estimate province-level service coverage can provide valuable insights into geographic inequality at lower levels. In comparison with household surveys, censuses facilitate inequality assessment at different spatial scales, but pose challenges in harmonising water and sanitation typologies across countries. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 98 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 1% |
| United States | 1 | 1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 1% |
| Germany | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 94 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 21 | 21% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 12% |
| Researcher | 10 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 7% |
| Other | 19 | 19% |
| Unknown | 21 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Environmental Science | 20 | 20% |
| Social Sciences | 14 | 14% |
| Engineering | 12 | 12% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 5% |
| Earth and Planetary Sciences | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 19 | 19% |
| Unknown | 24 | 24% |
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 29 November 2014.
All research outputs
#15,311,799
of 22,772,779 outputs
Outputs from International Journal for Equity in Health
#1,529
of 1,892 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#214,296
of 361,957 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal for Equity in Health
#27
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,772,779 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,892 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.2. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% 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 361,957 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.