↓ Skip to main content

Missing knowledge of gendered power relations among non-governmental organisations doing right to health work: a case study from South Africa

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
55 Mendeley
Title
Missing knowledge of gendered power relations among non-governmental organisations doing right to health work: a case study from South Africa
Published in
BMC Public Health, August 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12914-018-0172-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mayara Fontes Marx, Leslie London, Alex Müller

Abstract

Despite 20 years of democracy, South Africa still suffers from profound health inequalities. Gender roles and norms are associated with individuals' vulnerability that lead to ill-health. For instance, gender inequality influences women's access to health care and women's agency to make health-related decisions. This paper explores gender-awareness and inclusivity in organisations that advocate for the right to health in South Africa, and analyses how this knowledge impacts their work? In total, 10 in-depth interviews were conducted with members of The Learning Network for Health and Human Rights (LN), a network of universities and Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) which is explicitly committed to advancing the right to health, but not explicitly gendered in its orientation. The results show that there is a discrepancy in knowledge around gender and gendered power relations between LN members. This discrepancy in understanding gendered power relations suggests that gender is 'rendered invisible' within the LN, which impacts the way the LN advocates for the right to health. Even organizations that work on health rights of women might be unaware of the possibility of gender invisibility within their organisational structures.

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 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 55 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 13%
Student > Master 5 9%
Student > Bachelor 4 7%
Librarian 3 5%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 5%
Other 7 13%
Unknown 26 47%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 8 15%
Psychology 4 7%
Environmental Science 3 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 5%
Social Sciences 3 5%
Other 7 13%
Unknown 27 49%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 11 September 2018.
All research outputs
#3,763,719
of 25,385,509 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#4,623
of 17,517 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#71,930
of 344,376 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#90
of 269 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,385,509 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 17,517 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 344,376 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 269 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.