↓ Skip to main content

Are disadvantaged children more likely to be excluded from analysis when applying global positioning systems inclusion criteria?

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Research Notes, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (60th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
18 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
Are disadvantaged children more likely to be excluded from analysis when applying global positioning systems inclusion criteria?
Published in
BMC Research Notes, August 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13104-018-3681-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Suzanne Mavoa, Karen Lamb, David O’Sullivan, Karen Witten, Melody Smith

Abstract

When using global positioning systems (GPS) to assess an individual's exposure to their environment, a first step in data cleaning is to establish minimum GPS 'inclusion criteria' (a set of rules used to determine which GPS data are able to be included in analyses). Care is needed at this stage to avoid any data exclusion (data loss) systematically biasing results in terms of characteristics of the environment and participants. The extent of potential systematic bias in sample retention due to GPS data loss and application of GPS inclusion criteria is unknown. The aim of this study was to describe differences in sample size and socio-demographic characteristics of the retained sample when applying three different GPS inclusion criteria. The study assessed 7-day GPS data collected from children (aged 9-13 years) recruited from nine schools in Auckland, New Zealand as part of the Kids in the City study. Participants from ethnic minorities and those attending schools in lower socioeconomic areas were disproportionately excluded from the retained samples. This highlights potential equity implications in basing the assessment of exposure-which ultimately influences research results on the relationship between environment and health-on non-representative GPS data.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 18 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 17%
Researcher 3 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 11%
Student > Bachelor 1 6%
Unknown 9 50%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 3 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 11%
Social Sciences 2 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 6%
Environmental Science 1 6%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 9 50%
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 15 August 2018.
All research outputs
#7,931,513
of 24,155,398 outputs
Outputs from BMC Research Notes
#1,278
of 4,362 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#129,908
of 334,534 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Research Notes
#33
of 142 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,155,398 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 66th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,362 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 334,534 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 60% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 142 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.