| Title |
Lessons from sexual and reproductive health voucher program design and function: a comprehensive review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal for Equity in Health, April 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1475-9276-13-33 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Corinne Grainger, Anna Gorter, Jerry Okal, Ben Bellows |
| Abstract |
Developing countries face challenges in financing healthcare; often the poor do not receive the most basic services. The past decade has seen a sharp increase in the number of voucher programs, which target output-based subsidies for specific services to poor and underserved groups. The dearth of literature that examines lessons learned risks the wheel being endlessly reinvented. This paper examines commonalities and differences in voucher design and implementation, highlighting lessons learned for the design of new voucher programmes. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 | 20% |
| United States | 1 | 20% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 2 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 60% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 40% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 226 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Norway | 1 | <1% |
| Belgium | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 223 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 48 | 21% |
| Researcher | 33 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 17 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 16 | 7% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 12 | 5% |
| Other | 40 | 18% |
| Unknown | 60 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 50 | 22% |
| Social Sciences | 41 | 18% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 33 | 15% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 11 | 5% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 8 | 4% |
| Other | 15 | 7% |
| Unknown | 68 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 21 February 2020.
All research outputs
#5,387,013
of 25,295,968 outputs
Outputs from International Journal for Equity in Health
#989
of 2,202 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#49,048
of 234,503 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal for Equity in Health
#2
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,295,968 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 78th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,202 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% 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 234,503 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 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 6 of them.