↓ Skip to main content

Gender blind? An analysis of global public-private partnerships for health

Overview of attention for article published in Globalization and Health, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#11 of 990)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
313 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
102 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
Gender blind? An analysis of global public-private partnerships for health
Published in
Globalization and Health, May 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12992-017-0249-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sarah Hawkes, Kent Buse, Anuj Kapilashrami

Abstract

The Global Public Private Partnerships for Health (GPPPH) constitute an increasingly central part of the global health architecture and carry both financial and normative power. Gender is an important determinant of health status, influencing differences in exposure to health determinants, health behaviours, and the response of the health system. We identified 18 GPPPH - defined as global institutions with a formal governance mechanism which includes both public and private for-profit sector actors - and conducted a gender analysis of each. Gender was poorly mainstreamed through the institutional functioning of the partnerships. Half of these partnerships had no mention of gender in their overall institutional strategy and only three partnerships had a specific gender strategy. Fifteen governing bodies had more men than women - up to a ratio of 5:1. Very few partnerships reported sex-disaggregated data in their annual reports or coverage/impact results. The majority of partnerships focused their work on maternal and child health and infectious and communicable diseases - none addressed non-communicable diseases (NCDs) directly, despite the strong role that gender plays in determining risk for the major NCD burdens. We propose two areas of action in response to these findings. First, GPPPH need to become serious in how they "do" gender; it needs to be mainstreamed through the regular activities, deliverables and systems of accountability. Second, the entire global health community needs to pay greater attention to tackling the major burden of NCDs, including addressing the gendered nature of risk. Given the inherent conflicts of interest in tackling the determinants of many NCDs, it is debatable whether the emergent GPPPH model will be an appropriate one for addressing NCDs.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 313 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 102 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 2%
Unknown 100 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 22 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 13%
Researcher 11 11%
Other 8 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 7%
Other 18 18%
Unknown 23 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 27 26%
Medicine and Dentistry 16 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 4%
Psychology 4 4%
Other 14 14%
Unknown 30 29%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 225. 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 March 2018.
All research outputs
#105,615
of 19,549,916 outputs
Outputs from Globalization and Health
#11
of 990 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,980
of 279,292 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Globalization and Health
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,549,916 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 990 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 279,292 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them