Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 798

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 access
Kennedy, Bruce P, Kawachi, Ichiro, Prothrow-Stith, Deborah·1996·BMJ

Abstract

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bmj.312.7037.1004

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cited by

See all 798

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.