↓ Skip to main content

The Network Survival Method for Estimating Adult Mortality: Evidence From a Survey Experiment in Rwanda

Overview of attention for article published in Demography, July 2017
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 (85th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
17 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
9 Mendeley
Title
The Network Survival Method for Estimating Adult Mortality: Evidence From a Survey Experiment in Rwanda
Published in
Demography, July 2017
DOI 10.1007/s13524-017-0594-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dennis M. Feehan, Mary Mahy, Matthew J. Salganik

Abstract

Adult death rates are a critical indicator of population health and well-being. Wealthy countries have high-quality vital registration systems, but poor countries lack this infrastructure and must rely on estimates that are often problematic. In this article, we introduce the network survival method, a new approach for estimating adult death rates. We derive the precise conditions under which it produces consistent and unbiased estimates. Further, we develop an analytical framework for sensitivity analysis. To assess the performance of the network survival method in a realistic setting, we conducted a nationally representative survey experiment in Rwanda (n = 4,669). Network survival estimates were similar to estimates from other methods, even though the network survival estimates were made with substantially smaller samples and are based entirely on data from Rwanda, with no need for model life tables or pooling of data from other countries. Our analytic results demonstrate that the network survival method has attractive properties, and our empirical results show that this method can be used in countries where reliable estimates of adult death rates are sorely needed.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 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 9 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 9 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 44%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 22%
Other 1 11%
Researcher 1 11%
Unspecified 1 11%
Other 0 0%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 4 44%
Unspecified 2 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 11%
Computer Science 1 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 11%
Other 0 0%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 31 May 2018.
All research outputs
#952,148
of 11,332,834 outputs
Outputs from Demography
#244
of 1,198 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#38,973
of 260,731 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Demography
#7
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,332,834 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,198 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 260,731 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.