↓ Skip to main content

Minding the gaps: health financing, universal health coverage and gender

Overview of attention for article published in Health Policy & Planning, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#3 of 1,504)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
2 blogs
policy
1 policy source
twitter
141 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
31 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.
Title
Minding the gaps: health financing, universal health coverage and gender
Published in
Health Policy & Planning, July 2017
DOI 10.1093/heapol/czx063
Pubmed ID
Authors

Witter, Sophie, Govender, Veloshnee, Ravindran, TK Sundari, Yates, Robert

Abstract

In a webinar in 2015 on health financing and gender, the question was raised why we need to focus on gender, given that a well-functioning system moving towards Universal Health Coverage (UHC) will automatically be equitable and gender balanced. This article provides a reflection on this question from a panel of health financing and gender experts.We trace the evidence of how health-financing reforms have impacted gender and health access through a general literature review and a more detailed case-study of India. We find that unless explicit attention is paid to gender and its intersectionality with other social stratifications, through explicit protection and careful linking of benefits to needs of target populations (e.g. poor women, unemployed men, female-headed households), movement towards UHC can fail to achieve gender balance or improve equity, and may even exacerbate gender inequity. Political trade-offs are made on the road to UHC and the needs of less powerful groups, which can include women and children, are not necessarily given priority.We identify the need for closer collaboration between health economists and gender experts, and highlight a number of research gaps in this field which should be addressed. While some aspects of cost sharing and some analysis of expenditure on maternal and child health have been analysed from a gender perspective, there is a much richer set of research questions to be explored to guide policy making. Given the political nature of UHC decisions, political economy as well as technical research should be prioritized.We conclude that countries should adopt an equitable approach towards achieving UHC and, therefore, prioritize high-need groups and those requiring additional financial protection, in particular women and children. This constitutes the 'progressive universalism' advocated for by the 2013 Lancet Commission on Investing in Health.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 141 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 31 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 26%
Student > Master 5 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 16%
Other 4 13%
Researcher 4 13%
Other 5 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 14 45%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 16%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 4 13%
Unspecified 3 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 10%
Other 2 6%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 122. 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 19 April 2018.
All research outputs
#89,060
of 11,344,026 outputs
Outputs from Health Policy & Planning
#3
of 1,504 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,522
of 260,758 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Policy & Planning
#1
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,344,026 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,504 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 260,758 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.