↓ Skip to main content

Stigma and intersectionality: a systematic review of systematic reviews across HIV/AIDS, mental illness, and physical disability

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (81st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
18 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
46 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
220 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
Stigma and intersectionality: a systematic review of systematic reviews across HIV/AIDS, mental illness, and physical disability
Published in
BMC Public Health, July 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12889-018-5861-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Fatimah Jackson-Best, Nancy Edwards

Abstract

Stigma across HIV/AIDS, mental illness, and physical disability can be co-occurring and may interact with other forms of stigma related to social identities like race, gender, and sexuality. Stigma is especially problematic for people living with these conditions because it can create barriers to accessing necessary social and structural supports, which can intensify their experiences with stigma. This review aims to contribute to the knowledge on stigma by advancing a cross-analysis of HIV/AIDS, mental illness, and physical disability stigma, and exploring whether and how intersectionality frameworks have been used in the systematic reviews of stigma. A search of the literature was conducted to identify systematic reviews which investigated stigma for HIV/AIDS, mental illness and/or physical disability. The electronic databases MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, COCHRANE, and PsycINFO were searched for reviews published between 2005 and 2017. Data were extracted from eligible reviews on: type of systematic review and number of primary studies included in the review, study design study population(s), type(s) of stigma addressed, and destigmatizing interventions used. A keyword search was also done using the terms "intersectionality", "intersectional", and "intersection"; related definitions and descriptions were extracted. Matrices were used to compare the characteristics of reviews and their application of intersectional approaches across the three health conditions. Ninety-eight reviews met the inclusion criteria. The majority (99%) of reviews examined only one of the health conditions. Just three reviews focused on physical disability. Most reviews (94%) reported a predominance of behavioural rather than structural interventions targeting stigma in the primary studies. Only 17% of reviews used the concept and/or approach of intersectionality; all but one of these reviews examined HIV/AIDS. The lack of systematic reviews comparing stigma across mental illness, HIV/AIDS, and physical disability indicates the need for more cross-comparative analyses among these conditions. The integration of intersectional approaches would deepen interrogations of co-occurring social identities and stigma.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 220 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 220 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 37 17%
Researcher 25 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 25 11%
Student > Bachelor 23 10%
Other 14 6%
Other 49 22%
Unknown 47 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 35 16%
Social Sciences 34 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 30 14%
Psychology 27 12%
Business, Management and Accounting 7 3%
Other 30 14%
Unknown 57 26%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 25 December 2018.
All research outputs
#1,616,918
of 14,191,384 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#1,934
of 9,770 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#50,579
of 274,354 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#1
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,191,384 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,770 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 274,354 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them