↓ Skip to main content

Are health systems interventions gender blind? examining health system reconstruction in conflict affected states

Overview of attention for article published in Globalization and Health, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
27 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
34 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
175 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
Are health systems interventions gender blind? examining health system reconstruction in conflict affected states
Published in
Globalization and Health, August 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12992-018-0401-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Valerie Percival, Esther Dusabe-Richards, Haja Wurie, Justine Namakula, Sarah Ssali, Sally Theobald

Abstract

Global health policy prioritizes improving the health of women and girls, as evident in the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), multiple women's health initiatives, and the billions of dollars spent by international donors and national governments to improve health service delivery in low-income countries. Countries recovering from fragility and conflict often engage in wide-ranging institutional reforms, including within the health system, to address inequities. Research and policy do not sufficiently explore how health system interventions contribute to the broader goal of gender equity. This paper utilizes a framework synthesis approach to examine if and how rebuilding health systems affected gender equity in the post-conflict contexts of Mozambique, Timor Leste, Sierra Leone, and Northern Uganda. To undertake this analysis, we utilized the WHO health systems building blocks to establish benchmarks of gender equity. We then identified and evaluated a broad range of available evidence on these building blocks within these four contexts. We reviewed the evidence to assess if and how health interventions during the post-conflict reconstruction period met these gender equity benchmarks. Our analysis shows that the four countries did not meet gender equitable benchmarks in their health systems. Across all four contexts, health interventions did not adequately reflect on how gender norms are replicated by the health system, and conversely, how the health system can transform these gender norms and promote gender equity. Gender inequity undermined the ability of health systems to effectively improve health outcomes for women and girls. From our findings, we suggest the key attributes of gender equitable health systems to guide further research and policy. The use of gender equitable benchmarks provides important insights into how health system interventions in the post-conflict period neglected the role of the health system in addressing or perpetuating gender inequities. Given the frequent contact made by individuals with health services, and the important role of the health system within societies, this gender blind nature of health system engagement missed an important opportunity to contribute to more equitable and peaceful societies.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 27 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 175 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 175 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 28 16%
Researcher 22 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 11%
Other 11 6%
Student > Postgraduate 9 5%
Other 28 16%
Unknown 57 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 27 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 24 14%
Social Sciences 23 13%
Psychology 9 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 6 3%
Other 22 13%
Unknown 64 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 32. 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 20 May 2023.
All research outputs
#1,117,627
of 23,801,276 outputs
Outputs from Globalization and Health
#163
of 1,136 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,061
of 336,041 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Globalization and Health
#2
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,801,276 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,136 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.0. 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 336,041 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 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 96% of its contemporaries.