↓ Skip to main content

Shaped by asymmetrical interdependence: a qualitative case study of the external influences on international non-governmental organizations´ implementation of equity principles in HIV/AIDS work

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal for Equity in Health, October 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Readers on

mendeley
64 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
Shaped by asymmetrical interdependence: a qualitative case study of the external influences on international non-governmental organizations´ implementation of equity principles in HIV/AIDS work
Published in
International Journal for Equity in Health, October 2014
DOI 10.1186/s12939-014-0086-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Elizabeth Dyke, Nancy Edwards, Ian McDowell, Richard Muga, Stephen Brown

Abstract

IntroductionAddressing inequities is a key role for international non-governmental organizations (INGOs) working in health and development. Yet, putting equity principles into practice can prove challenging. In-depth empirical research examining what influences INGOs¿ implementation of equity principles is limited. This study examined the influences on one INGO¿s implementation of equity principles in its HIV/AIDS programs.MethodsThis research employed a case study with nested components (an INGO operating in Kenya, with offices in North America). We used multiple data collection methods, including document reviews, interviews (with staff, partners and clients of the INGO in Kenya), and participant observation (with Kenyan INGO staff). Participant observation was conducted with 10 people over three months. Forty-one interviews were completed, and 127 documents analyzed. Data analysis followed Auerbach and Silverstein¿s analytic process (2003), with qualitative coding conducted in multiple stages, using descriptive matrices, visual displays and networks (Miles and Huberman, 1994).ResultsThere was a gap between the INGO¿s intent to implement equity principles and actual practice due to multiple influences from various players, including donors and country governments. The INGO was reliant on donor funding and needed permission from the Kenyan government to work in-country. Major influences included donor agendas and funding, donor country policies, and Southern country government priorities and legislation. The INGO privileged particular vulnerable populations (based on its reputation, its history, and the priorities of the Kenyan government and the donors). To balance its equity commitment with the influences from other players, the INGO aligned with the system as well as pushed back incrementally on the donors and the Kenyan government to influence these organizations¿ equity agendas. By moving its equity agenda forward incrementally and using its reputational advantage, the INGO avoided potential negative repercussions that might result from pushing too fast or working outside the system.ConclusionsThe INGO aligned the implementation of equity principles in its HIV/AIDS initiatives by working within a system characterized by asymmetrical interdependence. Influences from the donors and Kenyan government contributed to an implementation gap between what the INGO intended to accomplish in implementing equity principles in HIV/AIDS work and actual practice.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 64 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 2%
Unknown 63 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 16%
Researcher 7 11%
Student > Master 6 9%
Student > Bachelor 6 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 8%
Other 10 16%
Unknown 20 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 22%
Social Sciences 12 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 11%
Arts and Humanities 2 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Other 7 11%
Unknown 20 31%
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 03 November 2014.
All research outputs
#14,139,873
of 22,766,595 outputs
Outputs from International Journal for Equity in Health
#1,414
of 1,892 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#131,220
of 255,127 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal for Equity in Health
#22
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,766,595 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,892 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.2. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% 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 255,127 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.