↓ Skip to main content

Socioeconomic indicators of health inequalities and female mortality: a nested cohort study within the United Kingdom Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS)

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, March 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
74 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
Socioeconomic indicators of health inequalities and female mortality: a nested cohort study within the United Kingdom Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS)
Published in
BMC Public Health, March 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12889-015-1609-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Katharine Bailey, Andy Ryan, Sophia Apostolidou, Evangelia Fourkala, Matthew Burnell, Aleksandra Gentry-Maharaj, Jatinderpal Kalsi, Max Parmar, Ian Jacobs, Hynek Pikhart, Usha Menon

Abstract

Evidence is mounting that area-level socioeconomic indicators are important tools for predicting health outcomes. However, few studies have examined these alongside individual-level education. This nested cohort study within the control arm of the United Kingdom Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS) assesses the association of mutually adjusted individual (education) and area-level (Index of Multiple Deprivation-IMD 2007) socioeconomic status indicators and all-cause female mortality. Participants resident in England who had completed both baseline (Wave 1) and follow up (Wave 2) questionnaires were included. Follow-up was through the Health and Social Care Information Centre with deaths censored on 31st December 2012. IMD, education and a range of covariates were explored. Cox regression models adjusted for all covariates were used. Sensitivity analysis using imputation was performed (1) including those with missing data and (2) on the entire cohort who had completed the baseline questionnaire. Of the 54,539 women resident in England who completed both Wave 1 and Wave 2 questionnaires, 4,510 had missing data. The remaining 50,029 women were included in the primary analysis. Area-level IMD was positively associated with all-cause mortality for the most deprived group compared to the least deprived (HR=1.42, CI=1.14-1.78) after adjusting for all potential confounders. Sensitivity analyses showed similar results with stronger associations in the entire cohort (HR=1.90, CI=1.68-2.16). The less educated an individual, the higher the mortality risk (test for trend p=<0.001). However, the crude effect on mortality of having no formal education compared to college/university education disappeared when adjusted for IMD rank (HR=1.08, CI=0.93-1.26). Women living in more deprived areas continue to have higher mortality even in this less deprived cohort and after adjustment for a range of potential confounders. This study is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN22488978.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 74 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 3%
South Africa 1 1%
Unknown 71 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 13 18%
Researcher 11 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 12%
Student > Postgraduate 6 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 5%
Other 13 18%
Unknown 18 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 24%
Social Sciences 11 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 5%
Psychology 4 5%
Other 9 12%
Unknown 21 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 April 2016.
All research outputs
#18,437,241
of 22,842,950 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#12,870
of 14,884 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#209,348
of 286,344 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#269
of 318 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,842,950 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,884 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.9. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% 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 286,344 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 318 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.