↓ Skip to main content

Mortality differences and inequalities within and between ‘protected characteristics’ groups, in a Scottish Cohort 1991–2009

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal for Equity in Health, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
61 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
Mortality differences and inequalities within and between ‘protected characteristics’ groups, in a Scottish Cohort 1991–2009
Published in
International Journal for Equity in Health, November 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12939-015-0274-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

A. D Millard, G. Raab, J. Lewsey, P. Eaglesham, P. Craig, K. Ralston, G. McCartney

Abstract

Little is known about the interaction between socio-economic status and 'protected characteristics' in Scotland. This study aimed to examine whether differences in mortality were moderated by interactions with social class or deprivation. The practical value was to pinpoint population groups for priority action on health inequality reduction and health improvement rather than a sole focus on the most deprived socioeconomic groups. We used data from the Scottish Longitudinal Study which captures a 5.3 % sample of Scotland and links the censuses of 1991, 2001 and 2011. Hazard ratios for mortality were estimated for those protected characteristics with sufficient deaths using Cox proportional hazards models and through the calculation of European age-standardised mortality rates. Inequality was measured by calculating the Relative Index of Inequality (RII). The Asian population had a polarised distribution across deprivation deciles and was more likely to be in social class I and II. Those reporting disablement were more likely to live in deprived areas, as were those raised Roman Catholic, whilst those raised as Church of Scotland or as 'other Christian' were less likely to. Those aged 35-54 years were the least likely to live in deprived areas and were most likely to be in social class I and II. Males had higher mortality than females, and disabled people had higher mortality than non-disabled people, across all deprivation deciles and social classes. Asian males and females had generally lower mortality hazards than majority ethnic ('White') males and females although the estimates for Asian males and females were imprecise in some social classes and deprivation deciles. Males and females who reported their raised religion as Roman Catholic or reported 'No religion' had generally higher mortality than other groups, although the estimates for 'Other religion' and 'Other Christian' were less precise.Using both the area deprivation and social class distributions for the whole population, relative mortality inequalities were usually greater amongst those who did not report being disabled, Asians and females aged 35-44 years, males by age, and people aged <75 years. The RIIs for the raised religious groups were generally similar or too imprecise to comment on differences. Mortality in Scotland is higher in the majority population, disabled people, males, those reporting being raised as Roman Catholics or with 'no religion' and lower in Asians, females and other religious groups. Relative inequalities in mortality were lower in disabled than nondisabled people, the majority population, females, and greatest in young adults. From the perspective of intersectionality theory, our results clearly demonstrate the importance of representing multiple identities in research on health inequalities.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 61 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 61 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 25%
Researcher 9 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 8%
Student > Bachelor 4 7%
Other 7 11%
Unknown 13 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 25%
Social Sciences 11 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 10%
Unspecified 6 10%
Psychology 3 5%
Other 5 8%
Unknown 15 25%
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 27 November 2015.
All research outputs
#7,224,351
of 22,834,308 outputs
Outputs from International Journal for Equity in Health
#1,115
of 1,906 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#114,396
of 386,751 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal for Equity in Health
#26
of 48 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,834,308 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,906 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.2. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% 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 386,751 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 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 48 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.