↓ Skip to main content

Knowledge and exercise of human rights, and barriers and facilitators to claiming rights: a cross-sectional study of female sex workers and high-risk men who have sex with men in Andhra Pradesh, India

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Readers on

mendeley
105 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
Knowledge and exercise of human rights, and barriers and facilitators to claiming rights: a cross-sectional study of female sex workers and high-risk men who have sex with men in Andhra Pradesh, India
Published in
BMC Public Health, November 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12914-016-0102-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Deepika Ganju, Sangram Kishor Patel, Parimi Prabhakar, Rajatashurva Adhikary

Abstract

HIV prevention interventions recognize the need to protect the rights of key populations and support them to claim their rights as a vulnerability reduction strategy. This study explores knowledge of human rights, and barriers and facilitators to claiming rights, among female sex workers (FSWs) and high-risk men who have sex with men (HR-MSM) who are beneficiaries of a community mobilization intervention in Andhra Pradesh, India. Data are drawn from a cross-sectional survey (2014) among 2400 FSWs and 1200 HR-MSM. Human rights awareness was assessed by asking respondents if they had heard of human rights (yes/no); those reporting awareness of rights were asked to spontaneously name specific rights from the following five pre-defined categories: right to health; dignity/equality; education; property; and freedom from discrimination. Respondents were classified into two groups: more knowledgeable (could identify two or more rights) and less knowledgeable (could identify one or no right). Univariate and bivariate analyses and chi-square tests were used. Data were analyzed using STATA 11.2. Overall 17% FSWs and 8% HR-MSM were not aware of their rights. Among those aware, 62% and 31% respectively were aware of just one or no right (less knowledgeable); only around half (54% vs 57%) were aware of health rights, and fewer (20% vs 16%) aware of their right to freedom from discrimination. Notably, 27% and 17% respectively had not exercised their rights. Barriers to claiming rights among FSWs and HR-MSM were neighbors (35% vs 37%), lack of knowledge (15% vs 14%), stigma (13% vs 22%) and spouse (19% FSWs). Community organizations (COs) were by far the leading facilitator in claiming rights (57% vs 72%). The study findings show that awareness of human rights is limited among FSWs and HR-MSM, and a large proportion have not claimed their rights, elevating their HIV vulnerability. For a sustained HIV response, community mobilization efforts must focus on building key populations' awareness of rights, and addressing the multiple barriers to claiming rights, with a view to creating a safe environment where vulnerable groups can demand and use services without fear of stigma, discrimination and violation of rights.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 105 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 105 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 14 13%
Student > Master 14 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 7%
Student > Bachelor 6 6%
Other 20 19%
Unknown 32 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 17 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 14 13%
Psychology 10 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 3%
Other 11 10%
Unknown 36 34%
Attention Score in Context

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 23 December 2016.
All research outputs
#17,285,036
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#13,336
of 17,508 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#261,322
of 417,789 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#136
of 179 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 17,508 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.4. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% 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 417,789 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 179 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.