↓ Skip to main content

Circumventing ‘free care’ and ‘shouting louder’: using a health systems approach to study eye health system sustainability in government and mission facilities of north-west Tanzania

Overview of attention for article published in Health Research Policy and Systems, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
168 Mendeley
Title
Circumventing ‘free care’ and ‘shouting louder’: using a health systems approach to study eye health system sustainability in government and mission facilities of north-west Tanzania
Published in
Health Research Policy and Systems, September 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12961-016-0137-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jennifer J. Palmer, Alice Gilbert, Michelle Choy, Karl Blanchet

Abstract

Little is known about the contributions of faith-based organisations (FBOs) to health systems in Africa. In the specialist area of eye health, international and domestic Christian FBOs have been important contributors as service providers and donors, but they are also commonly critiqued as having developed eye health systems parallel to government structures which are unsustainable. In this study, we use a health systems approach (quarterly interviews, a participatory sustainability analysis exercise and a social network analysis) to describe the strategies used by eye care practitioners in four hospitals of north-west Tanzania to navigate the government, church mission and donor rules that govern eye services delivery there. Practitioners in this region felt eye care was systemically neglected by government and therefore was 'all under the NGOs', but support from international donors was also precarious. Practitioners therefore adopted four main strategies to improve the sustainability of their services: (1) maintain 'sustainability funds' to retain financial autonomy over income; (2) avoid granting government user fee exemptions to elderly patients who are the majority of service users; (3) expand or contract outreach services as financial circumstances change; and (4) access peer support for problem-solving and advocacy. Mission-based eye teams had greater freedom to increase their income from user fees by not implementing government policies for 'free care'. Teams in all hospitals, however, found similar strategies to manage their programmes even when their management structures were unique, suggesting the importance of informal rules shared through a peer network in governing eye care in this pluralistic health system. Health systems research can generate new evidence on the social dynamics that cross public and private sectors within a local health system. In this area of Tanzania, Christian FBOs' investments are important, not only in terms of the population health outcomes achieved by teams they support, but also in the diversity of organisational models they contribute to in the wider eye health system, which facilitates innovation.

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 168 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Unknown 165 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 32 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 11%
Researcher 15 9%
Student > Bachelor 15 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 14 8%
Other 30 18%
Unknown 44 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 33 20%
Social Sciences 25 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 12 7%
Psychology 7 4%
Other 29 17%
Unknown 49 29%
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 27 September 2016.
All research outputs
#14,860,134
of 22,886,568 outputs
Outputs from Health Research Policy and Systems
#1,053
of 1,216 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#200,208
of 330,061 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Research Policy and Systems
#21
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,886,568 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,216 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% 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 330,061 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.