↓ Skip to main content

Associations between perceived stress, socioeconomic status, and health-risk behaviour in deprived neighbourhoods in Denmark: a cross-sectional study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (80th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
119 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
219 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
Associations between perceived stress, socioeconomic status, and health-risk behaviour in deprived neighbourhoods in Denmark: a cross-sectional study
Published in
BMC Public Health, February 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12889-018-5170-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Maria Holst Algren, Ola Ekholm, Line Nielsen, Annette Kjær Ersbøll, Carsten Kronborg Bak, Pernille Tanggaard Andersen

Abstract

Previous studies have found that residents of deprived neighbourhoods have an increased risk of perceived stress compared to residents with similar sociodemographic and socioeconomic characteristics in non-deprived neighbourhoods. While stress may provide an explanatory pathway linking neighbourhood deprivation to health-risk behaviour, only limited research has been undertaken on whether perceived stress influences health-risk behaviour in deprived neighbourhoods. Moreover, it is uncertain whether perceived stress has a negative effect on the associations between socioeconomic status and health-risk behaviours in deprived neighbourhoods. The overall aim of this study was to compare perceived stress in deprived neighbourhood with that in the general population, and to examine whether perceived stress was associated with health-risk behaviours (including their co-occurrence) in deprived neighbourhoods. A further aim was to examine whether perceived stress modified the associations between socioeconomic status and health-risk behaviours. Four questions from the Perceived Stress Scale were used as indicators of perceived stress. Multiple logistic regression analyses were applied to cross-sectional data from 5113 adults living in 12 deprived neighbourhoods in Denmark. Data from 14,868 individuals from the nationally representative Danish Health and Morbidity Survey 2010 were used as a comparison group with regard to perceived stress. Residents of deprived neighbourhoods had higher odds of perceived stress than the general population. Associations between disposable income, economic deprivation, strain, and perceived stress were found in deprived neighbourhoods. Perceived stress was significantly associated with higher odds of health-risk behaviour, including a low intake of fruit or vegetables, daily smoking, physical inactivity, and the co-occurrence of health-risk behaviours, even after adjustment for demographic and socioeconomic characteristics. Perceived stress was more strongly associated with physical inactivity and having two or more health-risk behaviours among residents with medium/high socioeconomic status compared to residents with low socioeconomic status. Overall, the study showed a clear association between perceived stress and health-risk behaviour in deprived neighbourhoods. Future health promotion interventions targeting deprived neighbourhoods may benefit from incorporating stress reduction strategies to reduce health-risk behaviour. Further research is needed to fully understand the mechanism underlying the association between perceived stress and health-risk behaviour in deprived neighbourhoods.

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 219 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 219 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 35 16%
Student > Bachelor 27 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 10%
Researcher 17 8%
Student > Postgraduate 10 5%
Other 24 11%
Unknown 85 39%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 24 11%
Psychology 20 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 19 9%
Social Sciences 19 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 4%
Other 32 15%
Unknown 97 44%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 03 October 2020.
All research outputs
#3,877,254
of 23,815,455 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#4,246
of 15,414 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#86,749
of 449,778 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#134
of 289 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,815,455 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 15,414 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% 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 449,778 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 289 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.