↓ Skip to main content

Social and health outcomes following upgrades to a national housing standard: a multilevel analysis of a five-wave repeated cross-sectional survey

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, December 2017
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 (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
37 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
103 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
Social and health outcomes following upgrades to a national housing standard: a multilevel analysis of a five-wave repeated cross-sectional survey
Published in
BMC Public Health, December 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12889-017-4928-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Wouter Poortinga, Nikki Jones, Simon Lannon, Huw Jenkins

Abstract

While existing research indicates that housing improvements are associated with health improvements, less is known about the wider social and health benefits of meeting national housing standards, as well as those of their specific constituent measures. This study evaluates the impacts of a managed housing upgrade programme through a repeated cross-sectional survey design. A five-wave repeated cross-sectional survey was conducted over a seven-year period from 2009 to 2016 (n = 2075; n = 2219; n = 2015; n = 1991; and n = 1709, respectively). The study followed a managed upgrade programme designed to meet a national social housing standard over an extended period. The data were analysed from a multilevel perspective to take account of the time-dependent nature of the observations and differences in socio-demographic composition. The installation of the majority of individual housing measures (new windows and doors; boilers; kitchens; bathrooms; electrics; loft insulation; and cavity/external wall insulation) were associated with improvements in several social (housing suitability, satisfaction, and quality; thermal comfort and household finances) and health (mental, respiratory and general health) outcomes; and analyses showed relationships between the number of measures installed and the total amount invested on the one hand and the social and health outcomes on the other. There were however a few exceptions. Most notably, the installation of cavity wall insulation was associated with poorer health outcomes, and did not lead to better social outcomes. Also, no association was found between the number of measures installed and respiratory health. The study suggests that substantial housing investments through a managed upgrade programme may result in better social and health outcomes, and that the size of the improvements are proportionate to the number of measures installed and amount invested. However, there may be risks associated with specific measures; and more attention is needed for mechanical ventilation when upgrading energy efficiency of houses through fabric work. In addition to providing new evidence regarding the wider social and health outcomes, the study provides an analytical approach to evaluate upgrade programmes that are delivered over multiple years.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 37 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 103 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 103 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 19 18%
Student > Master 11 11%
Student > Bachelor 9 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 7%
Other 13 13%
Unknown 36 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 18 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 8%
Engineering 6 6%
Energy 3 3%
Other 16 16%
Unknown 42 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 31. 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 12 April 2019.
All research outputs
#1,232,705
of 24,871,898 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#1,366
of 16,517 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,059
of 449,613 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#30
of 182 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,871,898 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 16,517 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 91% 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 449,613 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 182 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.