↓ Skip to main content

A qualitative study of the background and in-hospital medicolegal response to female burn injuries in India

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Women's Health, November 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (60th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
134 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
A qualitative study of the background and in-hospital medicolegal response to female burn injuries in India
Published in
BMC Women's Health, November 2014
DOI 10.1186/s12905-014-0142-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nayreen Daruwalla, Jyoti Belur, Meena Kumar, Vinay Tiwari, Sujata Sarabahi, Nick Tilley, David Osrin

Abstract

BackgroundMost burns happen in low- and middle-income countries. In India, deaths related to burns are more common in women than in men and occur against a complex background in which the cause ¿ accidental or non-accidental, suicidal or homicidal ¿ is often unclear. Our study aimed to understand the antecedents to burns and the problem of ascribing cause, the sequence of medicolegal events after a woman was admitted to hospital, and potential opportunities for improvement.MethodsWe conducted semi-structured interviews with 33 women admitted to two major burns units, their families, and 26 key informant doctors, nurses, and police officers. We used framework analysis to examine the context in which burns occurred and the sequence of medicolegal action after admission to hospital.ResultsInterviewees described accidents, attempted suicide, and attempted homicide. Distinguishing between these was difficult because the underlying combination of poverty and cultural precedent was common to all and action was contingent on potentially conflicting narratives. Space constraint, problems with cooking equipment, and inflammable clothing increased the risk of accidental burns, but coexisted with household conflict, gender-based violence, and alcohol use. Most burns were initially ascribed to accidents. Clinicians adhered to medicolegal procedures, the police carried out their investigative requirements relatively rapidly, but both groups felt vulnerable in the face of the legal process. Women¿s understandable reticence to describe burns as non-accidental, the contested nature of statements, their perceived history of changeability, the limited quality and validity of forensic evidence, and the requirement for resilience on the part of clients underlay a general pessimism.ConclusionsThe similarities between accident and intention cluster so tightly as to make them challenging to distinguish, especially given women¿s understandable reticence to describe burns as non-accidental. The contested status of forensic evidence and a reliance on testimony means that only a minority of cases lead to conviction. The emphasis should be on improving documentation, communication between service providers, and public understanding of the risks of burns.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 134 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
India 1 <1%
Unknown 133 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 21 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 14%
Student > Master 17 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 15 11%
Researcher 14 10%
Other 25 19%
Unknown 23 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 29 22%
Medicine and Dentistry 27 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 25 19%
Social Sciences 15 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 1%
Other 10 7%
Unknown 26 19%

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 09 December 2014.
All research outputs
#7,280,975
of 13,483,547 outputs
Outputs from BMC Women's Health
#453
of 784 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#112,375
of 298,028 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Women's Health
#67
of 125 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,483,547 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 784 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% 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 298,028 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 125 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.