↓ Skip to main content

Estimating the distribution of morbidity and mortality of childhood diarrhea, measles, and pneumonia by wealth group in low- and middle-income countries

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
13 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
30 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
89 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
Estimating the distribution of morbidity and mortality of childhood diarrhea, measles, and pneumonia by wealth group in low- and middle-income countries
Published in
BMC Medicine, July 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12916-018-1074-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Angela Y. Chang, Carlos Riumallo-Herl, Joshua A. Salomon, Stephen C. Resch, Logan Brenzel, Stéphane Verguet

Abstract

Equitable access to vaccines has been suggested as a priority for low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). However, it is unclear whether providing equitable access is enough to ensure health equity. Furthermore, disaggregated data on health outcomes and benefits gained across population subgroups are often unavailable. This paper develops a model to estimate the distribution of childhood disease cases and deaths across socioeconomic groups, and the potential benefits of three vaccine programs in LMICs. For each country and for three diseases (diarrhea, measles, pneumonia), we estimated the distributions of cases and deaths that would occur across wealth quintiles in the absence of any immunization or treatment programs, using both the prevalence and relative risk of a set of risk and prognostic factors. Building on these baseline estimates, we examined what might be the impact of three vaccines (first dose of measles, pneumococcal conjugate, and rotavirus vaccines), under five scenarios based on different sets of quintile-specific immunization coverage and disease treatment utilization rates. Due to higher prevalence of risk factors among the poor, disproportionately more disease cases and deaths would occur among the two lowest wealth quintiles for all three diseases when vaccines or treatment are unavailable. Country-specific context, including how the baseline risks, immunization coverage, and treatment utilization are currently distributed across quintiles, affects how different policies translate into changes in cases and deaths distribution. Our study highlights several factors that would substantially contribute to the unequal distribution of childhood diseases, and finds that merely ensuring equal access to vaccines will not reduce the health outcomes gap across wealth quintiles. Such information can inform policies and planning of programs that aim to improve equitable delivery of healthcare services.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 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 89 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 89 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 13 15%
Researcher 12 13%
Student > Bachelor 9 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 4%
Other 12 13%
Unknown 30 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 9%
Social Sciences 8 9%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 3%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 2 2%
Other 10 11%
Unknown 36 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 08 July 2018.
All research outputs
#5,257,594
of 25,571,620 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#2,448
of 4,054 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#92,608
of 341,792 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#48
of 65 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,571,620 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,054 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 45.9. 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 341,792 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 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 65 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.