Intersectionality and why it matters to global health
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The women's multiple disadvantages were perceived as preventing them from accessing relevant services.
“These multiple disadvantages were perceived as preventing them from accessing the relevant services as highlighted by Kapilashrami and Hankivsky (2018)”
From Guyanese Women's Experiences of Invisibility in Health Care in England (2020) · cites this paper as Kapilashrami and Hankivsky (2018)
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 19 · Cited by 367
- Authors
- Kapilashrami, A., & Hankivsky, O.
- Affiliations
- University of Edinburgh (GB)
- Simon Fraser University (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Kapilashrami, Anuj
- Venue
- The Lancet
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2018-06
- Volume
- 391
- Issue
- 10140
- Pages
- 2589-2591
- ISSN
- 0099-5355 (ISSN-L)
- 0140-6736
- OpenAlex
- W2810865019
- Cited by
- 367
- References
- 19
- Citations by year
- 2026: 52 · 2025: 56 · 2024: 56 · 2023: 49 · 2022: 54 · 2021: 54 · 2020: 24 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 2
- FWCI
- 56.88
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- The Lancet (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Gender, Health, and Social Inequality
- Social Sciences › Health › Public Health and Social Inequalities
- Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Feminist Theory and Gender Studies
- Keywords
- intersectionality, global health, health disparities, Sustainable Development Goals, leaving no one behind, vulnerable populations, social determinants of health
- MeSH terms
- Intersectoral Collaboration, Cardiovascular Diseases, Emigration and Immigration, Humans, Global Health, Vulnerable Populations, Health Status Disparities
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
