| Title |
Improving the quality of health information: a qualitative assessment of data management and reporting systems in Botswana
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Health Research Policy and Systems, January 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1478-4505-12-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jenny H Ledikwe, Jessica Grignon, Refeletswe Lebelonyane, Steven Ludick, Ellah Matshediso, Baraedi W Sento, Anjali Sharma, Bazghina-werq Semo |
| Abstract |
Ensuring that data collected through national health information systems are of sufficient quality for meaningful interpretation is a challenge in many resource-limited countries. An assessment was conducted to identify strengths and weaknesses of the health data management and reporting systems that capture and transfer routine monitoring and evaluation (M&E) data in Botswana. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 14% |
| United States | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 5 | 71% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 86% |
| Scientists | 1 | 14% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 407 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Tanzania, United Republic of | 1 | <1% |
| Indonesia | 1 | <1% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| Kenya | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Sierra Leone | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| New Zealand | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 397 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 107 | 26% |
| Researcher | 51 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 39 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 30 | 7% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 29 | 7% |
| Other | 72 | 18% |
| Unknown | 79 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 85 | 21% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 69 | 17% |
| Social Sciences | 44 | 11% |
| Computer Science | 41 | 10% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 16 | 4% |
| Other | 55 | 14% |
| Unknown | 97 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 18 December 2015.
All research outputs
#2,755,519
of 22,741,406 outputs
Outputs from Health Research Policy and Systems
#412
of 1,207 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#34,445
of 307,435 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Research Policy and Systems
#9
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,741,406 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,207 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% 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 307,435 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 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.