↓ Skip to main content

Gender-based violence screening methods preferred by women visiting a public hospital in Pune, India

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Women's Health, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
83 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-based violence screening methods preferred by women visiting a public hospital in Pune, India
Published in
BMC Women's Health, January 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12905-018-0515-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nishi Suryavanshi, Shilpa Naik, Smita Waghmare, Nikhil Gupte, Sameer Khan, Vidya Mave, Andrea Deluca, Amita Gupta, Jonathan Golub, Robert C. Bollinger, Anita Shankar

Abstract

Gender-based violence (GBV) is a major global public health concern and is a risk factor for adverse health outcomes. Early identification of GBV is crucial for improved health outcomes. Interactions with health care providers may provide a unique opportunity for routine GBV screening, if a safe, confidential environment can be established. Between November 2014 and February 2015, a cross-sectional, observational study was conducted where women were interviewed about their opinions concerning GBV screening in a tertiary health care setting in Pune, India. Trained counsellors interviewed 300 women at different out-patient and in-patient departments using a semi-structured questionnaire. Twenty-three percent of these women reported experiencing GBV in their life. However, 90% of women said they had never been asked about GBV in a health care setting. Seventy-two percent expressed willingness to be asked about GBV by their health care providers, with the preferred provider being nurses or counsellors. More than half (53%) women reported face-to-face interview as the most preferred method for screening. There were no major differences in these preferences by GBV history status. Our study provides evidence for preferred GBV screening methods and optimal provider engagement as perceived by women attending a public hospital.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 83 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 83 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 9 11%
Researcher 8 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 8%
Student > Master 7 8%
Student > Postgraduate 6 7%
Other 15 18%
Unknown 31 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 16 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 13 16%
Social Sciences 9 11%
Psychology 6 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 1%
Other 6 7%
Unknown 32 39%
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 18 January 2018.
All research outputs
#17,926,658
of 23,016,919 outputs
Outputs from BMC Women's Health
#1,446
of 1,849 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#332,974
of 473,640 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Women's Health
#41
of 50 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,016,919 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,849 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.8. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% 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 473,640 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 50 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.