↓ Skip to main content

Harmonizing national abortion and pregnancy prevention laws and policies for sexual violence survivors with the Maputo Protocol: proceedings of a 2016 regional technical meeting in sub-Saharan Africa

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Proceedings, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
6 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
75 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
Harmonizing national abortion and pregnancy prevention laws and policies for sexual violence survivors with the Maputo Protocol: proceedings of a 2016 regional technical meeting in sub-Saharan Africa
Published in
BMC Proceedings, April 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12919-018-0101-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jill Thompson, Chi-Chi Undie, Avni Amin, Brooke Ronald Johnson, Rajat Khosla, Leopold Ouedraogo, Triphonie Nkurunziza, Sara Rich, Elizabeth Westley, Melissa Garcia, Harriet Birungi, Ian Askew

Abstract

In April 2016, the Population Council, in partnership with the World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Consortium for Emergency Contraception, convened a regional meeting in Lusaka, Zambia, geared toward supporting countries in East and Southern Africa in meeting their obligations under the Maputo Protocol. These obligations include expanding access to women's reproductive health services - especially women survivors of sexual violence. Government and civil society representatives from six countries participated: Botswana, Ethiopia, Kenya, Malawi, Rwanda, and Zambia. Countries were selected based on to their being priority settings for the projects that sponsored the meeting, coupled with the fact that they were each far enough along in addressing post-rape care to be able to develop concrete policy, programming, and/or legal action plans by the end of the meeting. The meeting was the first activity in a joint project of technical assistance by the conveners, aimed at strengthening access to comprehensive post-rape care for survivors of sexual violence. It aimed to sensitize Member States to their obligations under the Maputo Protocol to expand women's access to emergency contraception (EC) and safe abortion services, and to inspire them to do so by providing information, research evidence, and a platform for discussion. The meeting deliberations fostered a better understanding of opportunities to broaden access to EC and safe abortion for survivors in the region. Discussions on EC in this regard centered on strengthening EC delivery in the clinical context, decentralizing EC services, increasing community awareness, and overcoming policy barriers. Safe abortion discussions focused primarily on legislation, policy, and integrating these services into existing services for sexual violence survivors. Country-specific action plans were developed to address gaps and weaknesses. The regional technical meeting concluded with a discussion of practical steps that participants could take to facilitate legal, policy, and program reform with respect to pregnancy prevention and safe abortion in their respective countries. The steps revolved around three mainly areas, namely: establishing an evidence base to inform action; creating forums for discussing the issues; and drafting action points to carry the momentum from the meeting forward. This paper details the proceedings from this regional technical meeting - proceedings that are of interest to the field of sexual and gender-based violence (and reproductive health, more broadly) as challenges faced by countries in implementing the Maputo Protocol are outlined, and evidence-informed and practice-based strategies for addressing these challenges are provided.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 75 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 75 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 13%
Student > Bachelor 7 9%
Researcher 7 9%
Other 4 5%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 4%
Other 6 8%
Unknown 38 51%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 13%
Social Sciences 4 5%
Psychology 4 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Other 5 7%
Unknown 37 49%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 10 December 2022.
All research outputs
#4,681,247
of 23,849,058 outputs
Outputs from BMC Proceedings
#54
of 378 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#87,736
of 328,512 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Proceedings
#3
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,849,058 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 378 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 328,512 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 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.