↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Searching for sex- and gender-sensitive tuberculosis research in public health: finding a needle in a haystack

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Women's Health, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
42 Mendeley
Title
Searching for sex- and gender-sensitive tuberculosis research in public health: finding a needle in a haystack
Published in
International Journal of Women's Health, December 2016
DOI 10.2147/ijwh.s119757
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bilkis Vissandjee, Assia Mourid, Christina A Greenaway, Wendy E Short, Jodi A Proctor

Abstract

Despite broadening consideration of sex- and gender-based issues in health research, when seeking information on how sex and gender contribute to disease contexts for specific health or public health topics, a lack of consistent or systematic use of terminology in health literature means that it remains difficult to identify research with a sex or gender focus. These inconsistencies are driven, in part, by the complexity and terminological inflexibility of the indexing systems for gender- and sex-related terms in public health databases. Compounding the issue are authors' diverse vocabularies, and in some cases lack of accuracy in defining and using fundamental sex-gender terms in writing, and when establishing keyword lists and search criteria. Considering the specific case of the tuberculosis (TB) prevention and management literature, an analysis of sex and gender sensitivity in three health databases was performed. While there is an expanding literature exploring the roles of both sex and gender in the trajectory and lived experience of TB, we demonstrate the potential to miss relevant research when attempting to retrieve literature using only the search criteria currently available. We, therefore, argue that for good clinical practice to be achieved; there is a need for both public health researchers and users to be better educated in appropriate usage of the terminology associated with sex and gender. In addition, public health database indexers ought to accept the task of developing and implementing adequate definitions of sex and gender terms so as to facilitate access to sex- and gender-related research. These twin advances will allow clinicians to more readily recognize and access knowledge pertaining to systems of redress that respond to gendered risks that compound existing health inequalities in disease management and control, particularly when dealing with already complex diseases. Given the methodological and linguistic challenges presented by the multidimensional and highly contextual nature of definitions of sex and gender, it will be important that this review task be undertaken using a multidisciplinary approach.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 42 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 12%
Other 3 7%
Student > Bachelor 3 7%
Lecturer 3 7%
Other 6 14%
Unknown 15 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 17%
Arts and Humanities 2 5%
Social Sciences 2 5%
Unspecified 1 2%
Other 4 10%
Unknown 16 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 26 January 2017.
All research outputs
#16,868,837
of 25,584,565 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Women's Health
#521
of 850 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#251,091
of 417,676 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Women's Health
#11
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,584,565 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 850 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.1. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% 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 417,676 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 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.