↓ Skip to main content

Scrambling for access: availability, accessibility, acceptability and quality of healthcare for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people in South Africa

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, May 2017
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)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
10 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
83 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
351 Mendeley
Title
Scrambling for access: availability, accessibility, acceptability and quality of healthcare for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people in South Africa
Published in
BMC Public Health, May 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12914-017-0124-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alex Müller

Abstract

Sexual orientation and gender identity are social determinants of health for people identifying as lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT), and health disparities among sexual and gender minority populations are increasingly well understood. Although the South African constitution guarantees sexual and gender minority people the right to non-discrimination and the right to access to healthcare, homo- and transphobia in society abound. Little is known about LGBT people's healthcare experiences in South Africa, but anecdotal evidence suggests significant barriers to accessing care. Using the framework of the UN International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights General Comment 14, this study analyses the experiences of LGBT health service users using South African public sector healthcare, including access to HIV counselling, testing and treatment. A qualitative study comprised of 16 semi-structured interviews and two focus group discussions with LGBT health service users, and 14 individual interviews with representatives of LGBT organisations. Data were thematically analysed within the framework of the UN International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights General Comment 14, focusing on availability, accessibility, acceptability and quality of care. All interviewees reported experiences of discrimination by healthcare providers based on their sexual orientation and/or gender identity. Participants recounted violations of all four elements of the UN General Comment 14: 1) Availability: Lack of public health facilities and services, both for general and LGBT-specific concerns; 2) Accessibility: Healthcare providers' refusal to provide care to LGBT patients; 3) Acceptability: Articulation of moral judgment and disapproval of LGBT patients' identity, and forced subjection of patients to religious practices; 4) Quality: Lack of knowledge about LGBT identities and health needs, leading to poor-quality care. Participants had delayed or avoided seeking healthcare in the past, and none had sought out accountability or complaint mechanisms within the health system. Sexual orientation and gender identity are important categories of analysis for health equity, and lead to disparities in all four dimensions of healthcare access as defined by General Comment 14. Discriminatory and prejudicial attitudes by healthcare providers, combined with a lack of competency and knowledge are key reasons for these disparities in South Africa.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 351 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
South Africa 1 <1%
Unknown 350 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 56 16%
Student > Bachelor 53 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 29 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 26 7%
Researcher 22 6%
Other 66 19%
Unknown 99 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 58 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 55 16%
Social Sciences 37 11%
Psychology 37 11%
Arts and Humanities 12 3%
Other 42 12%
Unknown 110 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 12 May 2022.
All research outputs
#1,930,547
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#2,252
of 17,517 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#36,421
of 329,744 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#51
of 275 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 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 17,517 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 329,744 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 275 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.