↓ Skip to main content

Paniya Voices: A Participatory Poverty and Health Assessment among a marginalized South Indian tribal population

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, March 2010
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 (77th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
4 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
95 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
Paniya Voices: A Participatory Poverty and Health Assessment among a marginalized South Indian tribal population
Published in
BMC Public Health, March 2010
DOI 10.1186/1471-2458-10-149
Pubmed ID
Authors

KS Mohindra, D Narayana, CK Harikrishnadas, SS Anushreedha, Slim Haddad

Abstract

In India, indigenous populations, known as Adivasi or Scheduled Tribes (STs), are among the poorest and most marginalized groups. 'Deprived' ST groups tend to display high levels of resignation and to lack the capacity to aspire; consequently their health perceptions often do not adequately correspond to their real health needs. Moreover, similar to indigenous populations elsewhere, STs often have little opportunity to voice perspectives framed within their own cultural worldviews. We undertook a study to gather policy-relevant data on the views, experiences, and priorities of a marginalized and previously enslaved tribal group in South India, the Paniyas, who have little 'voice' or power over their own situation.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 95 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
India 2 2%
Canada 1 1%
Unknown 92 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 17 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 16%
Student > Master 12 13%
Student > Postgraduate 10 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 6%
Other 22 23%
Unknown 13 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 25 26%
Medicine and Dentistry 19 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 7%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 5 5%
Psychology 4 4%
Other 15 16%
Unknown 20 21%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 30 November 2015.
All research outputs
#2,796,861
of 12,179,547 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#2,924
of 8,243 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#64,731
of 291,078 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#106
of 349 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,179,547 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,243 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% 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 291,078 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 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 349 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.