↓ Skip to main content

Examining diffusion to understand the how of SASA!, a violence against women and HIV prevention intervention in Uganda

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
38 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
302 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
Examining diffusion to understand the how of SASA!, a violence against women and HIV prevention intervention in Uganda
Published in
BMC Public Health, May 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12889-018-5508-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Elizabeth Starmann, Lori Heise, Nambusi Kyegombe, Karen Devries, Tanya Abramsky, Lori Michau, Tina Musuya, Charlotte Watts, Martine Collumbien

Abstract

A growing number of complex public health interventions combine mass media with community-based "change agents" and/or mobilisation efforts acting at multiple levels. While impact evaluations are important, there is a paucity of research into the more nuanced roles intervention and social network factors may play in achieving intervention outcomes, making it difficult to understand how different aspects of the intervention worked (or did not). This study applied aspects of diffusion of innovations theory to explore how SASA!, a community mobilisation approach for preventing HIV and violence against women, diffused within intervention communities and the factors that influenced the uptake of new ideas and behaviours around intimate partner relationships and violence. This paper is based on a qualitative study of couples living in SASA communities and secondary analysis of endline quantitative data collected as part of a cluster randomised control trial designed to evaluate the impact of the SASA! The primary trial was conducted in eight communities in Kampala, Uganda between 2007 and 2012. The secondary analysis of follow up survey data used multivariate logistic regression to examine associations between intervention exposure and interpersonal communication, and relationship change (n = 928). The qualitative study used in-depth interviews (n = 20) and framework analysis methods to explore the intervention attributes that facilitated engagement with the intervention and uptake of new ideas and behaviours in intimate relationships. We found communication materials and mid media channels generated awareness and knowledge, while the concurrent influence from interpersonal communication with community-based change agents and social network members more frequently facilitated changes in behaviour. The results indicate combining community mobilisation components, programme content that reflects peoples' lives and direct support through local change agents can facilitate diffusion and powerful collective change processes in communities. This study makes clear the value of applying diffusion of innovations theory to illuminate how complex public health intervention evaluations effect change. It also contributes to our knowledge of partner violence prevention in a low-income, urban East African context. ClinicalTrials.gov # NCT00790959 . Registered 13th November 2008.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 302 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 302 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 40 13%
Student > Bachelor 29 10%
Researcher 27 9%
Student > Master 26 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 25 8%
Other 45 15%
Unknown 110 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 50 17%
Social Sciences 39 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 29 10%
Psychology 17 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 2%
Other 37 12%
Unknown 123 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 June 2018.
All research outputs
#13,598,817
of 23,055,429 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#9,661
of 15,026 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#168,476
of 325,560 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#247
of 316 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,055,429 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 15,026 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.0. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% 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 325,560 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 316 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.