The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Income distribution and mortality: cross sectional ecological study of the Robin Hood index in the United States
Open accessAbstract
Objective : To determine the effect of income inequality as measured by the Robin Hood index and the Gini coefficient on all cause and cause specific mortality in the United States. Design : Cross sectional ecological study. Setting : Households in the United States. Main outcome measures : Disease specific mortality, income, household size, poverty, and smoking rates for each state. Results : The Robin Hood index was positively correlated with total mortality adjusted for age (r=0.54; P<0.05). This association remained after adjustment for poverty (P<0.007), where each percentage increase in the index was associated with an increase in the total mortality of 21.68 deaths per 100000. Effects of the index were also found for infant mortality (P=0.013); coronary heart disease (P=0.004); malignant neoplasms (P=0.023); and homicide (P<0.001). Strong associations were also found between the index and causes of death amenable to medical intervention. The Gini coefficient showed very little correlation with any of the causes of death. Conclusion : Variations between states in the inequality of income were associated with increased mortality from several causes. The size of the gap between the wealthy and less well off—as distinct from the absolute standard of living enjoyed by the poor—seems to matter in its own right. The findings suggest that policies that deal with the growing inequities in income distribution may have an important impact on the health of the population. Key messages: The size of the gap between the wealthy and less well off—as distinct from the absolute standard of living enjoyed by the poor—seems to be related to mortality Policies that deal with the growing inequities in income distribution may have a considerable impact on the health of the population
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Buhmann, B., Rainwater, L., Schmaus, G., & Smeeding, T. M. (1988) · Review of Income and Wealth · doi:10.1111/j.1475-4991.1988.tb00564.x · Cited by 1,200
Cited by
Social capital, income inequality, and mortality.
Kawachi, I., Kennedy, B. P., Lochner, K., & Prothrow-Stith, D. (1997) · American Journal of Public Health · doi:10.2105/ajph.87.9.1491 · Cited by 3,212
Self-citationSocioeconomic Disparities In Health: Pathways And Policies
Adler, N. E., & Newman, K. (2002) · Health Affairs · doi:10.1377/hlthaff.21.2.60 · Cited by 2,104
Social capital and self-rated health: a contextual analysis.
Kawachi, I., Kennedy, B. P., & Glass, R. (1999) · American Journal of Public Health · doi:10.2105/ajph.89.8.1187 · Cited by 1,856
Self-citationSocioeconomic Status and Health: What We Know and What We Don't
ADLER, N. E., & OSTROVE, J. M. (1999) · Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.1999.tb08101.x · Cited by 1,643
Health disparities and health equity: Concepts and measurement
Braveman, P. (2006) · Annual Review of Public Health · doi:10.1146/annurev.publhealth.27.021405.102103 · Cited by 1,570
Metadata
- Authors
- Kennedy, B. P., Kawachi, I., & Prothrow-Stith, D.
- Venue
- BMJ
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 1996-04-20
- Volume
- 312
- Issue
- 7037
- Pages
- 1004-1007
- ISSN
- 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
- 0959-8138
- 1468-5833
- OpenAlex
- W2095243958
- Cited by
- 798
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 59.58
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Income distribution and mortality: cross sectional ecological study of the Robin Hood index in the United States. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.312.7037.1004
- The paper
- Kennedy, B. P., Kawachi, I., & Prothrow-Stith, D. (1996). Income distribution and mortality: cross sectional ecological study of the Robin Hood index in the United States. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.312.7037.1004
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.