↓ 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

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
5 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
84 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
158 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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 158 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Unknown 155 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 41 26%
Student > Doctoral Student 20 13%
Student > Master 18 11%
Researcher 16 10%
Student > Bachelor 10 6%
Other 23 15%
Unknown 30 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 65 41%
Medicine and Dentistry 17 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 5%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 5 3%
Psychology 5 3%
Other 21 13%
Unknown 37 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 21 June 2023.
All research outputs
#4,141,635
of 25,019,109 outputs
Outputs from Demography
#929
of 2,026 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#61,674
of 320,788 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Demography
#17
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,019,109 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,026 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 26.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% 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 320,788 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.