↓ Skip to main content

Equally able, but unequally accepted: Gender differentials and experiences of community health volunteers promoting maternal, newborn, and child health in Morogoro Region, Tanzania

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal for Equity in Health, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
33 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
167 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
Equally able, but unequally accepted: Gender differentials and experiences of community health volunteers promoting maternal, newborn, and child health in Morogoro Region, Tanzania
Published in
International Journal for Equity in Health, August 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12939-015-0201-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Isabelle Feldhaus, Marissa Silverman, Amnesty E. LeFevre, Rose Mpembeni, Idda Mosha, Dereck Chitama, Diwakar Mohan, Joy J. Chebet, David Urassa, Charles Kilewo, Marya Plotkin, Giulia Besana, Helen Semu, Abdullah H. Baqui, Peter J. Winch, Japhet Killewo, Asha S. George

Abstract

Despite emerging qualitative evidence of gendered community health worker (CHW) experience, few quantitative studies examine CHW gender differentials. The launch of a maternal, newborn, and child health (MNCH) CHW cadre in Morogoro Region, Tanzania enlisting both males and females as CHWs, provides an opportunity to examine potential gender differences in CHW knowledge, health promotion activities and client acceptability. All CHWs who received training from the Integrated MNCH Program between December 2012 and July 2013 in five districts were surveyed and information on health promotion activities undertaken drawn from their registers. CHW socio-demographic characteristics, knowledge, and health promotion activities were analyzed through bi- and multivariate analyses. Composite scores generated across ten knowledge domains were used in ordered logistic regression models to estimate relationships between knowledge scores and predictor variables. Thematic analysis was also undertaken on 60 purposively sampled semi-structured interviews with CHWs, their supervisors, community leaders, and health committee members in 12 villages from three districts. Of all CHWs trained, 97 % were interviewed (n = 228): 55 % male and 45 % female. No significant differences were observed in knowledge by gender after controlling for age, education, date of training, marital status, and assets. Differences in number of home visits and community health education meetings were also not significant by gender. With regards to acceptability, women were more likely to disclose pregnancies earlier to female CHWs, than male CHWs. Men were more comfortable discussing sexual and reproductive concerns with male, than female CHWs. In some cases, CHW home visits were viewed as potentially being for ulterior or adulterous motives, so trust by families had to be built. Respondents reported that working as female-male pairs helped to address some of these dynamics. Male and female CHWs in this study have largely similar knowledge and health promotion outputs, but challenges in acceptance of CHW counseling for reproductive health and home visits by unaccompanied CHWs varied by gender. Programs that pair male and female CHWs may potentially overcome gender issues in CHW acceptance, especially if they change gender norms rather than solely accommodate gender preferences.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
South Africa 1 <1%
Unknown 166 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 30 18%
Researcher 27 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 10%
Student > Postgraduate 14 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 7%
Other 31 19%
Unknown 36 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 33 20%
Social Sciences 32 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 31 19%
Psychology 6 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 2%
Other 15 9%
Unknown 46 28%
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 08 September 2015.
All research outputs
#7,154,506
of 22,826,360 outputs
Outputs from International Journal for Equity in Health
#1,098
of 1,902 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#85,284
of 267,539 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal for Equity in Health
#16
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,826,360 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,902 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 41st percentile – i.e., 41% 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 267,539 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 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.