↓ Skip to main content

Human resources: the Cinderella of health sector reform in Latin America

Overview of attention for article published in Human Resources for Health, January 2005
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
34 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
90 Mendeley
citeulike
3 CiteULike
Title
Human resources: the Cinderella of health sector reform in Latin America
Published in
Human Resources for Health, January 2005
DOI 10.1186/1478-4491-3-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Núria Homedes, Antonio Ugalde

Abstract

Human resources are the most important assets of any health system, and health workforce problems have for decades limited the efficiency and quality of Latin America health systems. World Bank-led reforms aimed at increasing equity, efficiency, quality of care and user satisfaction did not attempt to resolve the human resources problems that had been identified in multiple health sector assessments. However, the two most important reform policies - decentralization and privatization - have had a negative impact on the conditions of employment and prompted opposition from organized professionals and unions. In several countries of the region, the workforce became the most important obstacle to successful reform.This article is based on fieldwork and a review of the literature. It discusses the reasons that led health workers to oppose reform; the institutional and legal constraints to implementing reform as originally designed; the mismatch between the types of personnel needed for reform and the availability of professionals; the deficiencies of the reform implementation process; and the regulatory weaknesses of the region.The discussion presents workforce strategies that the reforms could have included to achieve the intended goals, and the need to take into account the values and political realities of the countries. The authors suggest that autochthonous solutions are more likely to succeed than solutions imported from the outside.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 90 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Argentina 1 1%
Belgium 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
Unknown 87 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 21 23%
Researcher 12 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 9%
Lecturer 7 8%
Student > Bachelor 7 8%
Other 23 26%
Unknown 12 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 24 27%
Social Sciences 19 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 9%
Business, Management and Accounting 7 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 6%
Other 10 11%
Unknown 17 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 26 March 2018.
All research outputs
#8,262,445
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Human Resources for Health
#827
of 1,261 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#40,115
of 157,456 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Human Resources for Health
#2
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 66th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,261 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.3. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% 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 157,456 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.