| Title |
In-work tax credits for families and their impact on health status in adults
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd009963.pub2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Frank Pega, Kristie Carter, Tony Blakely, Patricia J Lucas |
| Abstract |
By improving two social determinants of health (poverty and unemployment) in low- and middle-income families on or at risk of welfare, in-work tax credit for families (IWTC) interventions could impact health status and outcomes in adults. |
Twitter Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 20% |
| Australia | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 3 | 60% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 40% |
| Members of the public | 2 | 40% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 440 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| South Africa | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 435 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 73 | 17% |
| Researcher | 54 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 44 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 43 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 24 | 5% |
| Other | 85 | 19% |
| Unknown | 117 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 107 | 24% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 49 | 11% |
| Social Sciences | 47 | 11% |
| Psychology | 40 | 9% |
| Unspecified | 15 | 3% |
| Other | 50 | 11% |
| Unknown | 132 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 24 May 2017.
All research outputs
#12,685,958
of 22,715,151 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#9,731
of 12,313 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#97,898
of 197,230 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#182
of 241 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,715,151 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,313 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.3. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% 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 197,230 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 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 241 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.