↓ Skip to main content

Combining transnational and intersectional approaches to immigrants' social protection: The case of Andean families' access to health

Overview of attention for article published in Comparative Migration Studies, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
12 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Readers on

mendeley
52 Mendeley
Title
Combining transnational and intersectional approaches to immigrants' social protection: The case of Andean families' access to health
Published in
Comparative Migration Studies, June 2018
DOI 10.1186/s40878-018-0073-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jean-Michel Lafleur, Maria Vivas Romero

Abstract

Immigrants and family members in the home and host societies experience inequalities in access to social protection. Focusing on healthcare, we demonstrate that immigrant families today respond to healthcare needs of family members here and there through four cross-border strategies. We show that immigrants select and articulate these different strategies to assemble transnational health care arrangements. Using an intersectional approach, we argue that heterogeneity markers such as gender, race, class, and levels of transnational engagement determine the choice between different types of arrangements. We support our argument with ethnographic data collected with 48 members of 10 Andean transnational family members during fieldwork in Belgium, Colombia, and Peru.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 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 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 52 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 25%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 12%
Student > Bachelor 5 10%
Professor 3 6%
Other 8 15%
Unknown 8 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 25 48%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 2%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 12 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 15 June 2018.
All research outputs
#4,796,228
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Comparative Migration Studies
#142
of 295 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#86,244
of 342,821 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Comparative Migration Studies
#2
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 295 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% 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 342,821 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.