↓ Skip to main content

The health system accountability impact of prison health committees in Zambia

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal for Equity in Health, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
12 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
41 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
The health system accountability impact of prison health committees in Zambia
Published in
International Journal for Equity in Health, September 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12939-018-0783-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stephanie M. Topp, Anjali Sharma, Chisela Chileshe, George Magwende, German Henostroza, Clement N. Moonga

Abstract

From 2013, the Zambian Corrections Service (ZCS) worked with partners to strengthen prison health systems and services. One component of that work led to the establishment of facility-based Prison Health Committees (PrHCs) comprising of both inmates and officers. We present findings from a nested evaluation of the impact of eight PrHCs 18 months after programme initiation. In-depth-interviews were conducted with 11 government ministry and Zambia Corrections Service officials and 6 facility managers. Sixteen focus group discussions were convened separately with PrHC members (21 females and 51 males) and non-members (23 females and 46 males) in 8 facilities. Memos were generated from participant observation in workshops and meetings preceding and after implementation. We sought evidence of PrHC impact, refined with reference to Joshi's three domains of impact for social accountability interventions - state (represented by facility-based prison officials), society (represented here by inmates), and state-society relations (represented by inmate-prison official relations). Further analysis considered how project outcomes influenced structural dimensions of power, ability and justice relating to accountability. Data pointed to a compelling series of short- and mid-term outcomes, with positive impact on access to, and provision of, health services across most facilities. Inmates (members and non-members) reported being empowered via a combination of improved health literacy and committee members' newly-given authority to seek official redress for complaints and concerns. Inmates and officers described committees as improving inmate-officer relations by providing a forum for information exchange and shared decision making. Contributing factors included more consistent inmate-officer communications through committee meetings, which in turn enhanced trust and co-production of solutions to health problems. Nonetheless, long-term sustainability of accountability impacts may be undermined by permanently skewed power relations, high rates of inmate (and thus committee member) turnover, variable commitment from some officers in-charge, and the anticipated need for more oversight and resources to maintain members' skills and morale. Our study shows that PrHCs do have potential to facilitate improved social accountability in both state and societal domains and at their intersection, for an extremely vulnerable population. However, sustained and meaningful change will depend on a longer-term strategy that integrates structural reform and is delivered through meaningful cross-sectoral partnership.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 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 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 41 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 12%
Researcher 5 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 12%
Student > Bachelor 4 10%
Unspecified 3 7%
Other 7 17%
Unknown 12 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 6 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 7%
Unspecified 3 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 5%
Other 11 27%
Unknown 13 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 09 January 2019.
All research outputs
#4,229,120
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from International Journal for Equity in Health
#760
of 1,966 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#82,272
of 342,058 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal for Equity in Health
#35
of 54 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,966 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% 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 342,058 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 54 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.