| Title |
Health workers’ experiences, barriers, preferences and motivating factors in using mHealth forms in Ethiopia
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Human Resources for Health, January 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1478-4491-13-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Araya Abrha Medhanyie, Alex Little, Henock Yebyo, Mark Spigt, Kidane Tadesse, Roman Blanco, Geert-Jan Dinant |
| Abstract |
Mobile health (mHealth) applications, such as innovative electronic forms on smartphones, could potentially improve the performance of health care workers and health systems in developing countries. However, contextual evidence on health workers' barriers and motivating factors that may influence large-scale implementation of such interfaces for health care delivery is scarce. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 42 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 States | 7 | 17% |
| United Kingdom | 4 | 10% |
| Ireland | 3 | 7% |
| Colombia | 2 | 5% |
| South Africa | 2 | 5% |
| Kenya | 2 | 5% |
| India | 2 | 5% |
| Pakistan | 1 | 2% |
| Canada | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 4 | 10% |
| Unknown | 14 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 30 | 71% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 7 | 17% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 3 | 7% |
| Scientists | 2 | 5% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 394 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 3 | <1% |
| India | 1 | <1% |
| Sweden | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 389 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 90 | 23% |
| Researcher | 57 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 41 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 24 | 6% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 24 | 6% |
| Other | 77 | 20% |
| Unknown | 81 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 92 | 23% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 56 | 14% |
| Social Sciences | 37 | 9% |
| Computer Science | 34 | 9% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 14 | 4% |
| Other | 64 | 16% |
| Unknown | 97 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 31. 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 20 June 2023.
All research outputs
#1,275,227
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Human Resources for Health
#99
of 1,261 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#17,783
of 377,403 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Human Resources for Health
#2
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
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 has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 377,403 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.