↓ Skip to main content

Why do certain primary health care teams respond better to intimate partner violence than others? A multiple case study

Overview of attention for article published in Gaceta Sanitaria, March 2019
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
86 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
Why do certain primary health care teams respond better to intimate partner violence than others? A multiple case study
Published in
Gaceta Sanitaria, March 2019
DOI 10.1016/j.gaceta.2017.10.005
Pubmed ID
Authors

Isabel Goicolea, Bruno Marchal, Anna-Karin Hurtig, Carmen Vives-Cases, Erica Briones-Vozmediano, Miguel San Sebastián

Abstract

To analyse how team level conditions influenced health care professionals' responses to intimate partner violence. We used a multiple embedded case study. The cases were four primary health care teams located in a southern region of Spain; two of them considered "good" and two s "average". The two teams considered good had scored highest in practice issues for intimate partner violence, measured via a questionnaire (PREMIS - Physicians Readiness to Respond to Intimate Partner Violence Survey) applied to professionals working in the four primary health care teams. In each case quantitative and qualitative data were collected using a social network questionnaire, interviews and observations. The two "good" cases showed dynamics and structures that promoted team working and team learning on intimate partner violence, had committed social workers and an enabling environment for their work, and had put into practice explicit strategies to implement a women-centred approach. Better individual responses to intimate partner violence were implemented in the teams which: 1) had social workers who were knowledgeable and motivated to engage with others; 2) sustained a structure of regular meetings during which issues of violence were discussed; 3) encouraged a friendly team climate; and 4) implemented concrete actions towards women-centred care.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 86 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 86 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 15 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 12%
Student > Master 8 9%
Researcher 7 8%
Other 6 7%
Other 13 15%
Unknown 27 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 22 26%
Psychology 9 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 8%
Social Sciences 5 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Other 13 15%
Unknown 27 31%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 January 2018.
All research outputs
#10,017,858
of 12,519,100 outputs
Outputs from Gaceta Sanitaria
#442
of 479 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#246,966
of 342,223 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Gaceta Sanitaria
#31
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,519,100 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 479 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.9. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 342,223 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 37 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.