↓ Skip to main content

Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology Volume 226

Overview of attention for book
Attention for Chapter 2: Urban vs. Rural Factors That Affect Adult Asthma.
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#15 of 191)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
3 blogs
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
138 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Chapter title
Urban vs. Rural Factors That Affect Adult Asthma.
Chapter number 2
Book title
Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology Volume 226
Published in
Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, April 2013
DOI 10.1007/978-1-4614-6898-1_2
Pubmed ID
Book ISBNs
978-1-4614-6897-4, 978-1-4614-6898-1
Authors

Jie Y, Isa ZM, Jie X, Ju ZL, Ismail NH, Yu Jie, Zaleha Md Isa, Xu Jie, Zhang Long Ju, Noor Hassim Ismail, Jie, Yu, Isa, Zaleha Md, Jie, Xu, Ju, Zhang Long, Ismail, Noor Hassim

Abstract

In this review, our aim was to examine the influence of geographic variations on asthma prevalence and morbidity among adults, which is important for improving our understanding, identifying the burden, and for developing and implementing interventions aimed at reducing asthma morbidity. Asthma is a complex inflammatory disease of multifactorial origin, and is influenced by both environmental and genetic factors. The disparities in asthma prevalence and morbidity among the world's geographic locations are more likely to be associated with environmental exposures than genetic differences. In writing this article, we found that the indoor factors most consistently associated with asthma and asthma-related symptoms in adults included fuel combustion, mold growth, and environmental tobacco smoke in both urban and rural areas. Asthma and asthma-related symptoms occurred more frequently in urban than in rural areas, and that difference correlated with environmental risk exposures, SES, and healthcare access. Environmental risk factors to which urban adults were more frequently exposed than rural adults were dust mites,high levels of vehicle emissions, and a westernized lifestyle.Exposure to indoor biological contaminants in the urban environment is common.The main risk factors for developing asthma in urban areas are atopy and allergy to house dust mites, followed by allergens from animal dander. House dust mite exposure may potentially explain differences in diagnosis of asthma prevalence and morbidity among adults in urban vs. rural areas. In addition, the prevalence of asthma morbidity increases with urbanization. High levels of vehicle emissions,Western lifestyles and degree of urbanization itself, may affect outdoor and thereby indoor air quality. In urban areas, biomass fuels have been widely replaced by cleaner energy sources at home, such as gas and electricity, but in most developing countries, coal is still a major source of fuel for cooking and heating, particularly in winter. Moreover, exposure to ETS is common at home or at work in urban areas.There is evidence that asthma prevalence and morbidity is less common in rural than in urban areas. The possible reasons are that rural residents are exposed early in life to stables and to farm milk production, and such exposures are protective against developing asthma morbidity. Even so, asthma morbidity is disproportionately high among poor inner-city residents and in rural populations. A higher proportion of adult residents of nonmetropolitan areas were characterized as follows:aged 55 years or older, no previous college admission, low household income, no health insurance coverage, and could not see a doctor due to healthcare service availability, etc. In rural areas, biomass fuels meet more than 70% of the rural energy needs. Progress in adopting modern energy sources in rural areas has been slow. The most direct health impact comes from household energy use among the poor, who depend almost entirely on burning biomass fuels in simple cooking devices that are placed in inadequately ventilated spaces. Prospective studies are needed to assess the long-term effects of biomass smoke on lung health among adults in rural areas.Geographic differences in asthma susceptibility exist around the world. The reason for the differences in asthma prevalence in rural and urban areas may be due to the fact that populations have different lifestyles and cultures, as well as different environmental exposures and different genetic backgrounds. Identifying geographic disparities in asthma hospitalizations is critical to implementing prevention strategies,reducing morbidity, and improving healthcare financing for clinical asthma treatment. Although evidence shows that differences in the prevalence of asthma do exist between urban and rural dwellers in many parts of the world, including in developed countries, data are inadequate to evaluate the extent to which different pollutant exposures contribute to asthma morbidity and severity of asthma between urban and rural areas.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 138 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Unknown 135 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 12%
Student > Master 16 12%
Researcher 14 10%
Student > Bachelor 14 10%
Other 10 7%
Other 28 20%
Unknown 39 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 37 27%
Social Sciences 13 9%
Environmental Science 9 7%
Engineering 7 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 4%
Other 21 15%
Unknown 45 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 30. 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 28 December 2023.
All research outputs
#1,290,813
of 25,068,002 outputs
Outputs from Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology
#15
of 191 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,796
of 197,125 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology
#1
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,068,002 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 191 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 197,125 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them