↓ Skip to main content

Incidence, prevalence, and hybrid approaches to calculating disability-adjusted life years

Overview of attention for article published in Population Health Metrics, September 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
54 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
87 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
Incidence, prevalence, and hybrid approaches to calculating disability-adjusted life years
Published in
Population Health Metrics, September 2012
DOI 10.1186/1478-7954-10-19
Pubmed ID
Authors

S Andrew Schroeder

Abstract

When disability-adjusted life years are used to measure the burden of disease on a population in a time interval, they can be calculated in several different ways: from an incidence, pure prevalence, or hybrid perspective. I show that these calculation methods are not equivalent and discuss some of the formal difficulties each method faces. I show that if we don't discount the value of future health, there is a sense in which the choice of calculation method is a mere question of accounting. Such questions can be important, but they don't raise deep theoretical concerns. If we do discount, however, choice of calculation method can change the relative burden attributed to different conditions over time. I conclude by recommending that studies involving disability-adjusted life years be explicit in noting what calculation method is being employed and in explaining why that calculation method has been chosen.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
India 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
Unknown 85 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 21 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 22%
Student > Master 10 11%
Student > Bachelor 9 10%
Student > Postgraduate 6 7%
Other 13 15%
Unknown 9 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 27 31%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 10%
Social Sciences 8 9%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 5 6%
Mathematics 4 5%
Other 18 21%
Unknown 16 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 01 January 2015.
All research outputs
#6,248,525
of 22,679,690 outputs
Outputs from Population Health Metrics
#184
of 391 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#44,894
of 168,588 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Population Health Metrics
#4
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,679,690 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 391 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% 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 168,588 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 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.