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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Social disparities in the prevalence of diabetes in Australia and in the development of end stage renal disease due to diabetes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders in Australia and Maori and Pacific Islanders in New Zealand
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Public Health, October 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12889-017-4807-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Kathleen Hill, Paul Ward, Blair S. Grace, Jonathan Gleadle |
| Abstract |
Disparities in health status occur between people with differing socioeconomic status and disadvantaged groups usually have the highest risk exposure and the worst health outcome. We sought to examine the social disparities in the population prevalence of diabetes and in the development of treated end stage renal disease due to type 1 diabetes which has not previously been studied in Australia and New Zealand in isolation from type 2 diabetes. This observational study examined the population prevalence of diabetes in a sample of the Australian population (7,434,492) using data from the National Diabetes Services Scheme and of treated end stage renal disease due to diabetes using data from the Australian and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant Registry. The data were then correlated with the Australian Bureau of Statistics Socioeconomic Indexes for Areas for an examination of socioeconomic disparities. There is a social gradient in the prevalence of diabetes in Australia with disease incidence decreasing incrementally with increasing affluence (Spearman's rho = .765 p < 0.001). There is a higher risk of developing end stage renal disease due to type 1 diabetes for males with low socioeconomic status (RR 1.20; CI 1.002-1.459) in comparison to females with low socioeconomic status. In Australia and New Zealand Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, Maori and Pacific Islanders appear to have a low risk of end stage renal disease due to type 1 diabetes but continue to carry a vastly disproportionate burden of end stage renal disease due to type 2 diabetes (RR 6.57 CI 6.04-7.14 & 6.48 CI 6.02-6.97 respectively p < 0.001) in comparison to other Australian and New Zealanders. Whilst low socioeconomic status is associated with a higher prevalence of diabetes the inverse social gradient seen in this study has not previously been reported. The social disparity seen in relation to treated end stage renal disease due to type 2 diabetes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, Maori and Pacific Islanders has changed very little in the past 20 years. Addressing the increasing incidence of diabetes in Australia requires consideration of the underlying social determinants of health. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 152 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 152 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 34 | 22% |
| Student > Master | 22 | 14% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 14 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 7% |
| Researcher | 10 | 7% |
| Other | 17 | 11% |
| Unknown | 44 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 40 | 26% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 31 | 20% |
| Psychology | 7 | 5% |
| Social Sciences | 7 | 5% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 3% |
| Other | 17 | 11% |
| Unknown | 46 | 30% |
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 26 October 2023.
All research outputs
#15,573,893
of 24,682,395 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#11,337
of 16,347 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#186,033
of 329,493 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#119
of 166 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,682,395 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 16,347 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% 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 329,493 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 166 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.