↓ Skip to main content

Barriers and facilitators of access to maternal services for women with disabilities: scoping review protocol

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
79 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
Barriers and facilitators of access to maternal services for women with disabilities: scoping review protocol
Published in
Systematic Reviews, May 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13643-017-0494-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Doreen Mheta, Tivani P. Mashamba-Thompson

Abstract

The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) emphasises the increasing equitable coverage of quality health care and provision of integrated services as means of reducing maternal mortality. Despite so much effort being placed on improved access to maternity health care, studies show that women with disabilities are being systemically excluded from the mainstream maternal health services. The proposed scoping review aims to map literature on the barriers and facilitators of access to maternal services for women with disabilities. The search strategy for this scoping review study will involve electronic databases including Pubmed, MEDLINE via EBSCOhost, CINAHL Plus with full text via EBSCOhost, Africa-Wide Info via EBSCOhost, JSTOR and Proquest Health and Medical Complete. Articles will also be searched through the "Cited by" search as well as citations included in the reference lists of included articles. A two-stage mapping strategy would be conducted. Stage 1 would be to screen studies through examining their titles. Furthermore, we will screen abstracts of the identified studies descriptively and by focus and method as stipulated by the inclusion and exclusion criteria. In stage 2, we will extract data from the included studies. A parallel screening and data extraction will be undertaken by two reviewers. We will access the quality of the included studies using the mixed methods appraisal tool (MMAT). We will use NVIVO version 10 to extract the relevant outcomes and thematic analysis of the studies. We anticipate to find relevant studies reporting evidence on the barriers and facilitators of access to maternal health services in Sub-Saharan Africa. The evidence obtained from the included studies when summarised will help guide future research. The study findings will be disseminated electronically and in print. In addition, it will be presented at conferences related to sexual reproductive health, maternal health care and reproductive health.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 79 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 79 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 20 25%
Researcher 11 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 11%
Lecturer 6 8%
Student > Postgraduate 6 8%
Other 20 25%
Unknown 7 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 19%
Social Sciences 12 15%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 4%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 4%
Other 12 15%
Unknown 16 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 31 January 2018.
All research outputs
#6,311,535
of 12,444,666 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#632
of 1,012 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#124,789
of 339,353 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#26
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,444,666 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,012 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.0. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% 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 339,353 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 62% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.