↓ Skip to main content

Introduction of male circumcision for HIV prevention in Uganda: analysis of the policy process

Overview of attention for article published in Health Research Policy and Systems, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
89 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
Introduction of male circumcision for HIV prevention in Uganda: analysis of the policy process
Published in
Health Research Policy and Systems, June 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12961-015-0020-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Walter Denis Odoch, Kenneth Kabali, Racheal Ankunda, Joseph Mumba Zulu, Moses Tetui

Abstract

Health policy analysis is important for all health policies especially in fields with ever changing evidence-based interventions such as HIV prevention. However, there are few published reports of health policy analysis in sub-Saharan Africa in this field. This study explored the policy process of the introduction of male circumcision (MC) for HIV prevention in Uganda in order to inform the development processes of similar health policies. Desk review of relevant documents was conducted between March and May 2012. Thematic analysis was used to analyse the data. Conceptual frameworks that demonstrate the interrelationship within the policy development processes and influence of actors in the policy development processes guided the analysis. Following the introduction of MC on the national policy agenda in 2007, negotiation and policy formulation preceded its communication and implementation. Policy proponents included academic researchers in the early 2000s and development partners around 2007. Favourable contextual factors that supported the development of the policy included the rising HIV prevalence, adoption of MC for HIV prevention in other sub-Saharan African countries, and expertise on MC. Additionally, the networking capability of proponents facilitated the change in position of non-supportive or neutral actors. Non-supportive and neutral actors in the initial stages of the policy development process included the Ministry of Health, traditional and Muslim leaders, and the Republican President. Using political authority, legitimacy, and charisma, actors who opposed the policy tried to block the policy development process. Researchers' initial disregard of the Ministry of Health in the research process of MC and the missing civil society advocacy arm contributed to delays in the policy development process. This study underscores the importance of securing top political leadership as well key implementing partners' support in policy development processes. Equally important is the appreciation of the various forms of actors' power and how such power shapes the policy agenda, development process, and content.

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 89 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Uganda 1 1%
Unknown 87 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 19 21%
Researcher 12 13%
Student > Bachelor 10 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 10%
Librarian 5 6%
Other 14 16%
Unknown 20 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 20%
Social Sciences 18 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 17%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 2%
Other 11 12%
Unknown 22 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 26 June 2015.
All research outputs
#6,420,771
of 22,813,792 outputs
Outputs from Health Research Policy and Systems
#762
of 1,214 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#75,114
of 264,425 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Research Policy and Systems
#8
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,813,792 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,214 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% 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 264,425 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 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.