↓ Skip to main content

The fertility of internal migrants to Kinshasa

Overview of attention for article published in Genus, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
14 Mendeley
Title
The fertility of internal migrants to Kinshasa
Published in
Genus, May 2017
DOI 10.1186/s41118-017-0020-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Philip Anglewicz, Jamaica Corker, Patrick Kayembe

Abstract

The rapid population growth of many African cities has important implications for population health, yet little is known about factors contributing to increasing population, such as the fertility of internal migrants. We examine whether in-migrants to Kinshasa have different fertility patterns than lifetime Kinshasa residents, and identify characteristics of migrants that may explain differences in fertility. We also use detailed migration histories to examine whether fertility differs by features of migration. We use representative data from the PMA2020 Project for 2197 women in Kinshasa, including 340 women who moved to Kinshasa. We examine differences between migrants and non-migrants in fertility and other fertility-related characteristics. We also examine whether fertility differs by duration of residence in Kinshasa, number of lifetime moves, age at first migration, urban/rural classification of birthplace, and the distinction between intra-Kinshasa migration and migration to Kinshasa.. Migrants have significantly higher fertility than permanent Kinshasa residents, but the difference is relatively small in magnitude. This higher fertility appears due in part to patterns of contraceptive use among migrants. There is noteworthy heterogeneity among migrants: higher fertility among migrants is associated with longer duration in Kinshasa, more lifetime moves, urban-Kinshasa migration, older age at first migration, and moving to Kinshasa from outside (as opposed to intra-Kinshasa migration).

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 14 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 14 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Lecturer 2 14%
Student > Master 2 14%
Researcher 2 14%
Unspecified 1 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 7%
Other 3 21%
Unknown 3 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 4 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 7%
Unspecified 1 7%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 7%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 6 43%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 16 June 2017.
All research outputs
#9,222,154
of 15,060,107 outputs
Outputs from Genus
#30
of 40 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#121,809
of 226,457 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Genus
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,060,107 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 40 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.9. This one scored the same or higher as 10 of them.
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 226,457 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them