↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Barriers to accessing and using contraception in highland Guatemala: the development of a family planning self-efficacy scale

Overview of attention for article published in Open Access Journal of Contraception, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
91 Mendeley
Title
Barriers to accessing and using contraception in highland Guatemala: the development of a family planning self-efficacy scale
Published in
Open Access Journal of Contraception, April 2016
DOI 10.2147/oajc.s95674
Pubmed ID
Authors

Emma Richardson, Kenneth R Allison, Dionne Gesink, Albert Berry

Abstract

Understanding the persistent inequalities in the prevalence rates of family planning and unmet need for family planning between indigenous and nonindigenous women in Guatemala requires localized explorations of the specific barriers faced by indigenous women. Based on social cognitive theory, elicitation interviews were carried out with a purposive sample of 16 young women, aged 20-24 years, married or in union, from the rural districts of Patzún, Chimaltenango, Guatemala. Content analysis was carried out using the constant-comparison method to identify the major themes. Based on this qualitative study, the following barriers are incorporated into the development of a self-efficacy scale: lack of knowledge about and availability of methods, fear of side effects and infertility, husbands being against family planning (and related fears of marital problems and abandonment), pressure from in-laws and the community, and the belief that using contraception is a sin. This is the first evidence-informed self-efficacy scale developed with young adult, indigenous women that addresses the issue of family planning in Latin America.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 91 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Ghana 1 1%
Unknown 90 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 20 22%
Student > Bachelor 12 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 7%
Researcher 6 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 7%
Other 8 9%
Unknown 33 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 15 16%
Social Sciences 14 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 13 14%
Psychology 3 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Other 10 11%
Unknown 34 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 23 February 2018.
All research outputs
#15,339,158
of 25,748,735 outputs
Outputs from Open Access Journal of Contraception
#1
of 1 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#158,768
of 315,638 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Open Access Journal of Contraception
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,748,735 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.1. This one scored the same or higher as 0 of them.
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 315,638 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 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