↓ Skip to main content

Urban health indicators and indices—current status

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, May 2015
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 (82nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
10 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
43 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
176 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
Urban health indicators and indices—current status
Published in
BMC Public Health, May 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12889-015-1827-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Richard Rothenberg, Christine Stauber, Scott Weaver, Dajun Dai, Amit Prasad, Megumi Kano

Abstract

Though numbers alone may be insufficient to capture the nuances of population health, they provide a common language of appraisal and furnish clear evidence of disparities and inequalities. Over the past 30 years, facilitated by high speed computing and electronics, considerable investment has been made in the collection and analysis of urban health indicators, environmental indicators, and methods for their amalgamation. Much of this work has been characterized by a perceived need for a standard set of indicators. We used publication databases (e.g. Medline) and web searches to identify compilations of health indicators and health metrics. We found 14 long-term large-area compilations of health indicators and determinants and seven compilations of environmental health indicators, comprising hundreds of metrics. Despite the plethora of indicators, these compilations have striking similarities in the domains from which the indicators are drawn-an unappreciated concordance among the major collections. Research with these databases and other sources has produced a small number of composite indices, and a number of methods for the amalgamation of indicators and the demonstration of disparities. These indices have been primarily used for large-area (nation, region, state) comparisons, with both developing and developed countries, often for purposes of ranking. Small area indices have been less explored, in part perhaps because of the vagaries of data availability, and because idiosyncratic local conditions require flexible approaches as opposed to a fixed format. One result has been advances in the ability to compare large areas, but with a concomitant deficiency in tools for public health workers to assess the status of local health and health disparities. Large area assessments are important, but the need for small area action requires a greater focus on local information and analysis, emphasizing method over prespecified content.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 176 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Portugal 2 1%
United States 2 1%
Indonesia 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 169 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 33 19%
Researcher 25 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 24 14%
Other 12 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 11 6%
Other 34 19%
Unknown 37 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 30 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 25 14%
Environmental Science 21 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 6%
Engineering 10 6%
Other 36 20%
Unknown 44 25%
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 02 November 2020.
All research outputs
#3,760,361
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#4,062
of 15,466 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#46,951
of 267,400 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#62
of 224 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 15,466 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 73% 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 267,400 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 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 224 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 72% of its contemporaries.