↓ Skip to main content

BMJ

Article Metrics

Negro, Black, Black African, African Caribbean, African American or what? Labelling African origin populations in the health arena in the 21st century

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health (1978), December 2005
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
policy
3 policy sources
twitter
38 tweeters
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages
googleplus
2 Google+ users

Citations

dimensions_citation
134 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
159 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Negro, Black, Black African, African Caribbean, African American or what? Labelling African origin populations in the health arena in the 21st century
Published in
Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health (1978), December 2005
DOI 10.1136/jech.2005.035964
Pubmed ID
Authors

C. Agyemang

Abstract

Broad terms such as Black, African, or Black African are entrenched in scientific writings although there is considerable diversity within African descent populations and such terms may be both offensive and inaccurate. This paper outlines the heterogeneity within African populations, and discusses the strengths and limitations of the term Black and related labels from epidemiological and public health perspectives in Europe and the USA. This paper calls for debate on appropriate terminologies for African descent populations and concludes with the proposals that (1) describing the population under consideration is of paramount importance (2) the word African origin or simply African is an appropriate and necessary prefix for an ethnic label, for example, African Caribbean or African Kenyan or African Surinamese (3) documents should define the ethnic labels (4) the label Black should be phased out except when used in political contexts.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 38 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 159 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 2%
Canada 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Unknown 154 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 42 26%
Student > Doctoral Student 23 14%
Student > Bachelor 20 13%
Student > Master 17 11%
Researcher 12 8%
Other 32 20%
Unknown 13 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 42 26%
Medicine and Dentistry 35 22%
Psychology 21 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 5%
Other 20 13%
Unknown 21 13%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 59. 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 27 February 2021.
All research outputs
#434,798
of 17,370,809 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health (1978)
#263
of 4,015 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,862
of 160,598 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health (1978)
#5
of 59 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,370,809 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,015 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 160,598 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 59 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.