Title |
A systematic approach to the planning, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation of integrated health services
|
---|---|
Published in |
BMC Health Services Research, May 2013
|
DOI | 10.1186/1472-6963-13-168 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Heidi W Reynolds, Elizabeth G Sutherland |
Abstract |
Because of the current emphasis and enthusiasm focused on integration of health systems, there is a risk of piling resources into integrated strategies without the necessary systems in place to monitor their progress adequately or to measure impact, and to learn from these efforts. The rush to intervene without adequate monitoring and evaluation will continue to result in a weak evidence base for decision making and resource allocation. Program planning and implementation are inextricability linked to monitoring and evaluation. Country level guidance is needed to identify country-specific integrated strategies, thereby increasing country ownership. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Spain | 3 | 27% |
United States | 2 | 18% |
Mexico | 1 | 9% |
Switzerland | 1 | 9% |
Unknown | 4 | 36% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 10 | 91% |
Scientists | 1 | 9% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 340 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United Kingdom | 3 | <1% |
Indonesia | 3 | <1% |
Canada | 2 | <1% |
Malaysia | 1 | <1% |
Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
Australia | 1 | <1% |
Switzerland | 1 | <1% |
India | 1 | <1% |
Uganda | 1 | <1% |
Other | 2 | <1% |
Unknown | 324 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Master | 64 | 19% |
Researcher | 43 | 13% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 39 | 11% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 23 | 7% |
Student > Bachelor | 21 | 6% |
Other | 69 | 20% |
Unknown | 81 | 24% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 78 | 23% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 48 | 14% |
Social Sciences | 38 | 11% |
Business, Management and Accounting | 22 | 6% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 15 | 4% |
Other | 56 | 16% |
Unknown | 83 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 24 January 2018.
All research outputs
#3,753,912
of 22,709,015 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#1,694
of 7,594 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,338
of 193,144 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#28
of 113 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,709,015 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,594 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 193,144 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 113 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.