↓ Skip to main content

Equity implications for sanitation from recent health and nutrition evidence

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal for Equity in Health, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (65th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
112 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
Equity implications for sanitation from recent health and nutrition evidence
Published in
International Journal for Equity in Health, December 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12939-017-0709-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

A. A. Cronin, M. E. Gnilo, M. Odagiri, S. Wijesekera

Abstract

Recent evidence points to the possible underestimation of the health and nutrition impact of sanitation. Community sanitation coverage may first need to reach thresholds in the order of 60% or higher, to optimize health and nutrition gains. Increasing coverage of sanitation to levels below 60% of community coverage may not result in substantial gains. For example, moving Indonesia from 60% to 100% improved sanitation coverage could significantly reduce diarrhoea in children under 5 years old (by an estimated 24% reduction in odds ratio for child diarrhoea morbidity) with gains split equally by reaching underserved communities and the unserved within communities. We review the implications of these results across three levels of program implementation - from micro level approaches (that support communities to achieve open defecation-free status), to meso level (sub-national implementation) to macro level approaches for the national enabling environment and the global push to the Sustainable Development Goals. We found significant equity implications and recommend that future studies focus more extensively on community coverage levels and verified community open defecation free status rather than household access alone. Sanitation practitioners may consider developing phased approaches to improving water, sanitation and hygiene in communities while prioritizing the unserved or underserved.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 112 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 112 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 17%
Student > Master 15 13%
Researcher 13 12%
Student > Bachelor 8 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 4%
Other 12 11%
Unknown 41 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 16 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 10%
Environmental Science 9 8%
Social Sciences 8 7%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 7 6%
Other 14 13%
Unknown 47 42%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 21 December 2017.
All research outputs
#7,485,026
of 23,009,818 outputs
Outputs from International Journal for Equity in Health
#1,156
of 1,924 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#149,835
of 439,982 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal for Equity in Health
#23
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,009,818 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,924 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.3. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% 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 439,982 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.