↓ Skip to main content

Gendered health systems: evidence from low- and middle-income countries

Overview of attention for article published in Health Research Policy and Systems, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#16 of 1,394)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
policy
1 policy source
twitter
130 X users
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
77 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
334 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
Gendered health systems: evidence from low- and middle-income countries
Published in
Health Research Policy and Systems, July 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12961-018-0338-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rosemary Morgan, Richard Mangwi Ayiasi, Debjani Barman, Stephen Buzuzi, Charles Ssemugabo, Nkoli Ezumah, Asha S. George, Kate Hawkins, Xiaoning Hao, Rebecca King, Tianyang Liu, Sassy Molyneux, Kelly W. Muraya, David Musoke, Tumaini Nyamhanga, Bandeth Ros, Kassimu Tani, Sally Theobald, Sreytouch Vong, Linda Waldman

Abstract

Gender is often neglected in health systems, yet health systems are not gender neutral. Within health systems research, gender analysis seeks to understand how gender power relations create inequities in access to resources, the distribution of labour and roles, social norms and values, and decision-making. This paper synthesises findings from nine studies focusing on four health systems domains, namely human resources, service delivery, governance and financing. It provides examples of how a gendered and/or intersectional gender approach can be applied by researchers in a range of low- and middle-income settings (Cambodia, Zimbabwe, Uganda, India, China, Nigeria and Tanzania) to issues across the health system and demonstrates that these types of analysis can uncover new and novel ways of viewing seemingly intractable problems. The research used a combination of mixed, quantitative, qualitative and participatory methods, demonstrating the applicability of diverse research methods for gender and intersectional analysis. Within each study, the researchers adapted and applied a variety of gender and intersectional tools to assist with data collection and analysis, including different gender frameworks. Some researchers used participatory tools, such as photovoice and life histories, to prompt deeper and more personal reflections on gender norms from respondents, whereas others used conventional qualitative methods (in-depth interviews, focus group discussion). Findings from across the studies were reviewed and key themes were extracted and summarised. Five core themes that cut across the different projects were identified and are reported in this paper as follows: the intersection of gender with other social stratifiers; the importance of male involvement; the influence of gendered social norms on health system structures and processes; reliance on (often female) unpaid carers within the health system; and the role of gender within policy and practice. These themes indicate the relevance of and need for gender analysis within health systems research. The implications of the diverse examples of gender and health systems research highlighted indicate that policy-makers, health practitioners and others interested in enhancing health system research and delivery have solid grounds to advance their enquiry and that one-size-fits-all heath interventions that ignore gender and intersectionality dimensions require caution. It is essential that we build upon these insights in our efforts and commitment to move towards greater equity both locally and globally.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 130 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 334 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 334 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 56 17%
Researcher 41 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 29 9%
Student > Bachelor 20 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 18 5%
Other 46 14%
Unknown 124 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 54 16%
Social Sciences 50 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 45 13%
Business, Management and Accounting 8 2%
Psychology 6 2%
Other 36 11%
Unknown 135 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 100. 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 27 November 2023.
All research outputs
#425,069
of 25,543,275 outputs
Outputs from Health Research Policy and Systems
#16
of 1,394 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,168
of 341,399 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Research Policy and Systems
#2
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,543,275 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,394 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 341,399 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.