↓ Skip to main content

Healthy donor effect and satisfaction with health

Overview of attention for article published in The European Journal of Health Economics, August 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
27 Mendeley
Title
Healthy donor effect and satisfaction with health
Published in
The European Journal of Health Economics, August 2014
DOI 10.1007/s10198-014-0625-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Edlira Shehu, Annette Hofmann, Michel Clement, Ann-Christin Langmaack

Abstract

The objective of this paper is to quantify selection effects related to blood donation behavior and their impact on donors' perceived health status. We rely on data from the 2009 and 2010 survey waves of the German socio-economic panel (N = 12,000), including information on health-related, demographic and psychographic factors as well as monetary donation behavior and volunteer work. We propose a propensity score matching approach to control for the healthy donor effect related to the health requirements for active blood donations. We estimate two separate models and quantify selection biases between (1) active and inactive blood donors and (2) active donors and non-donors. Our results reveal that active donors are more satisfied with their health status; after controlling for selection effects, however, the differences become non-significant, revealing selection biases of up to 82 % compared with non-donors. These differences also exist between active and inactive donors, but the differences are less distinct. Our methodological approach reveals and quantifies selection biases attributable to the healthy donor effect. These biases are substantial enough to lead to erroneous statistical artifacts, implying that researchers should rigorously control for selection biases when comparing the health outcomes of different blood donor groups.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 27 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 30%
Student > Master 4 15%
Student > Bachelor 3 11%
Professor 3 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 11%
Other 6 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 26%
Unspecified 7 26%
Social Sciences 3 11%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 7%
Other 6 22%

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 08 September 2014.
All research outputs
#7,833,642
of 12,484,416 outputs
Outputs from The European Journal of Health Economics
#488
of 742 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#102,502
of 202,048 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The European Journal of Health Economics
#12
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,484,416 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 742 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.5. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% 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 202,048 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.