↓ Skip to main content

Examining intersectional inequalities in access to health (enabling) resources in disadvantaged communities in Scotland: advancing the participatory paradigm

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal for Equity in Health, September 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 (88th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
30 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
111 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
Examining intersectional inequalities in access to health (enabling) resources in disadvantaged communities in Scotland: advancing the participatory paradigm
Published in
International Journal for Equity in Health, September 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12939-018-0797-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anuj Kapilashrami, Sara Marsden

Abstract

Multiple structural, contextual and individual factors determine social disadvantage and affect health experience. There is limited understanding, however, of how this complex system works to shape access to health enabling resources (HER), especially for most marginalised or hard-to-reach populations. As a result, planning continues to be bereft of voices and lived realities of those in the margins. This paper reports on key findings and experience of a participatory action research (PAR) that aimed to deepen understanding of how multiple disadvantages (and structures of oppression) interact to produce difference in access to resources affecting well-being in disadvantaged communities in Edinburgh. An innovative approach combining intersectionality and PAR was adopted and operationalised in three overlapping phases. A preparatory phase helped establish relationships with participant groups and policy stakeholders, and challenge assumptions underlying the study design. Field-work and analysis was conducted iteratively in two phases: with a range of participants working in policy and community roles (or 'bridge' populations), followed by residents of one Edinburgh locality with relatively high levels of deprivation (As measured by the Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation, a geographically-based indicator. See http://www.gov.scot/Topics/Statistics/SIMD/DataAnalysis/SPconstituencyprofile/EdinburghNorthern-Leith ). Traditional qualitative methods (interviews, focus groups) alongside participatory methods (health resource mapping, spider-grams, photovoice) were employed to facilitate action-oriented knowledge production among multiply disadvantaged groups. There was considerable agreement across groups and communities as to what healthful living (in general) means. This entailed a combination of material, environmental, socio-cultural and affective resources including: a sense of belonging and of purpose, feeling valued, self-esteem, safe/secure housing, reliable income, and access to responsive and sensitive health care when needed. Differences emerge in the value placed by people at different social locations on these resources. The conditions/aspects of their living environment that affected their access to and ability to translate these resources into improved health also appeared to vary with social location. Integrating intersectionality with PAR enables the generation of a fuller understanding of disparities in the distribution of, and access to, HER, notably from the standpoint of those excluded from mainstream policy and planning processes. Employing an intersectionality lens helped illuminate links between individual subjectivities and wider social structures and power relations. PAR on the other hand offered the potential to engage multiply disadvantaged groups in a process to collectively build local knowledge for action to develop healthier communities and towards positive community-led social change.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 30 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 111 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 111 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 18 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 12%
Researcher 7 6%
Student > Postgraduate 6 5%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 4%
Other 15 14%
Unknown 48 43%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 15 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 8%
Psychology 5 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Other 14 13%
Unknown 51 46%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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 10 October 2018.
All research outputs
#1,903,676
of 24,004,724 outputs
Outputs from International Journal for Equity in Health
#289
of 2,043 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#40,810
of 344,074 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal for Equity in Health
#19
of 54 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,004,724 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,043 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.5. 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 344,074 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 54 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.