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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Exploring Female Genital Cutting Among Survivors of Torture
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health, April 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10903-016-0419-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Adeyinka M. Akinsulure-Smith, Tracy Chu |
| Abstract |
Though the practice of female genital cutting (FGC) has been framed as a form of gender-based torture, few studies have examined the prevalence and impact of the practice among documented survivors of torture. This article presents a secondary analysis of data from 514 African-born women at an interdisciplinary clinic for survivors of torture. Results indicate few demographic differences between those who experienced FGC and those who had not, though a larger proportion of the FGC group were West African and identified as Muslim. Many with FGC were in the process of applying for asylum, reported sexual and psychological torture, and cited gender as a basis for their persecution. The FGC group evidenced unique correlates related to immigration status and psychological and sexual torture experiences that the non-FGC group did not. Findings indicate that female survivors of torture with FGC represent a distinct group with specific mental health needs. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 6 | 67% |
| Philippines | 1 | 11% |
| Unknown | 2 | 22% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 9 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 83 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 83 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 11 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 8% |
| Other | 13 | 16% |
| Unknown | 23 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 14 | 17% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 13 | 16% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 16% |
| Social Sciences | 9 | 11% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 8 | 10% |
| Unknown | 24 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 21 May 2016.
All research outputs
#7,328,836
of 23,867,274 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health
#539
of 1,261 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#99,658
of 302,322 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health
#13
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,867,274 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,261 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% 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 302,322 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 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 62% of its contemporaries.