↓ Skip to main content

Diabetes care among urban women in Soweto, South Africa: a qualitative study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
285 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
Diabetes care among urban women in Soweto, South Africa: a qualitative study
Published in
BMC Public Health, December 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12889-015-2615-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Emily Mendenhall, Shane A. Norris

Abstract

Escalation of non-communicable diseases such as Type 2 diabetes among low-income populations in low- and middle-income countries presents challenges for health systems. Yet, very little is known about low-income people's diabetes care experiences in such contexts. One of the greatest challenges of diabetes care in such contexts is providing care for those who face poverty, poor healthcare access, and concurrent physical and mental conditions. This article investigates women's experiences with diabetes care in Soweto, a township of Johannesburg, South Africa. This study involved caregivers for children enrolled in the Birth to Twenty (Bt20) cohort study initiated in 1990. Enrolled in the study for more than two decades, women previously diagnosed with type 2 diabetes were invited to participate. We conducted 27 in depth interviews around issues of stress, diabetes, mental health, and diabetes care. We transcribed interviews and used content analysis to analyze emergent themes into three categories: counseling, treatment, and social support. First, counseling focused on nutrition but very little on exercise, and women had limited understanding of what was diabetes or what they should do to control it. Second, women were inconsistent with reporting their diabetes treatment routines, both with adhering to medicines and seeking treatments. They identified structural barriers as overcrowded clinics and poor access to medicines as impeding adherence to treatment. Finally, women identified support from their families and friends and recognized stress associated with these relationships around food (e.g., we're not eating that!) and diabetes stigma. Effective diabetes education and management in the clinical setting will require systematic changes to healthcare. Inconsistencies across public and private health systems with regards to diabetes counseling, drug availability, quality of care, and patient wait times indicate patients will forego a clinical visit in lieu of diabetes self-care. For example, structural barriers in the public health system undermine medication adherence. With a stronger national emphasis in healthcare on diabetes counseling and management such systemic issues should be reshaped to ensure patients have access to essential medication and services.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 285 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Rwanda 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 283 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 45 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 36 13%
Student > Bachelor 32 11%
Researcher 27 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 26 9%
Other 54 19%
Unknown 65 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 61 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 45 16%
Social Sciences 25 9%
Psychology 22 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 3%
Other 46 16%
Unknown 78 27%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 December 2015.
All research outputs
#3,373,678
of 6,884,314 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#4,492
of 6,260 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#152,454
of 297,851 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#182
of 263 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 6,884,314 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,260 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.1. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% 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 297,851 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 263 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.