↓ Skip to main content

A Social History of Disease: Contextualizing the Rise and Fall of Social Inequalities in Cause-Specific Mortality

Overview of attention for article published in Demography, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
75 Mendeley
Title
A Social History of Disease: Contextualizing the Rise and Fall of Social Inequalities in Cause-Specific Mortality
Published in
Demography, August 2016
DOI 10.1007/s13524-016-0495-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sean A. P. Clouston, Marcie S. Rubin, Jo C. Phelan, Bruce G. Link

Abstract

Fundamental cause theory posits that social inequalities in health arise because of unequal access to flexible resources, including knowledge, money, power, prestige, and beneficial social connections, which allow people to avoid risk factors and adopt protective factors relevant in a particular place. In this study, we posit that diseases should also be put into temporal context. We characterize diseases as transitioning through four stages at a given time: (1) natural mortality, characterized by no knowledge about risk factors, preventions, or treatments for a disease in a population; (2) producing inequalities, characterized by unequal diffusion of innovations; (3) reducing inequalities, characterized by increased access to health knowledge; and (4) reduced mortality/disease elimination, characterized by widely available prevention and effective treatment. For illustration, we pair an ideal-types analysis with mortality data to explore hypothesized incidence rates of diseases. Although social inequalities exist in incidence rates of many diseases, the cause, extent, and direction of inequalities change systematically in relation to human intervention. This article highlights opportunities for further development, specifically highlighting the role of stage duration in maintaining social inequalities in cause-specific mortality.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 75 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
India 1 1%
Spain 1 1%
United Kingdom 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Unknown 71 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 27 36%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 13%
Student > Master 9 12%
Unspecified 8 11%
Researcher 7 9%
Other 14 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 37 49%
Unspecified 10 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 7%
Psychology 4 5%
Other 12 16%

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 10 October 2016.
All research outputs
#4,544,904
of 8,497,409 outputs
Outputs from Demography
#981
of 1,090 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#140,073
of 256,079 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Demography
#21
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,497,409 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,090 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.5. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% 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 256,079 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.