↓ Skip to main content

The perceived impact of family physicians on the district health system in South Africa: a cross-sectional survey

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Primary Care, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
policy
1 policy source
twitter
12 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
63 Mendeley
Title
The perceived impact of family physicians on the district health system in South Africa: a cross-sectional survey
Published in
BMC Primary Care, February 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12875-018-0710-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Klaus B. von Pressentin, Robert J. Mash, Laurel Baldwin-Ragaven, Roelf Petrus Gerhardus Botha, Indiran Govender, Wilhelm Johannes Steinberg, Tonya M. Esterhuizen

Abstract

Evidence from first world contexts support the notion that strong primary health care teams contain family physicians (FPs). African leaders are looking for evidence from their own context. The roles and scope of practice of FPs are also contextually defined. The South African family medicine discipline has agreed on six roles. These roles were incorporated into a family physician impact assessment tool, previously validated in the Western Cape Province. A cross-sectional study design was used to assess the perceived impact of family physicians across seven South African provinces. All FPs working in the district health system (DHS) of these seven provinces were invited to participate. Sixteen respondents (including the FP) per enrolled FP were asked to complete the validated 360-degree assessment tool. A total number of 52 FPs enrolled for the survey (a response rate of 56.5%) with a total number of 542 respondents. The mean number of respondents per FP was 10.4 (SD = 3.9). The perceived impact made by FPs was high for five of the six roles. Co-workers rated their FP's impact across all six roles as higher, compared to the other doctors at the same facility. The perceived beneficial impact was experienced equally across the whole study setting, with no significant differences when comparing location (rural vs. metropolitan), facility type or training model (graduation before and ≥ 2011). The findings support the need to increase the deployment of family physicians in the DHS and to increase the number being trained as per the national position paper.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 63 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 63 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 22%
Researcher 9 14%
Other 6 10%
Lecturer 5 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 8%
Other 14 22%
Unknown 10 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 35%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 16%
Social Sciences 5 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Unspecified 1 2%
Other 7 11%
Unknown 16 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 25. 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 22 November 2020.
All research outputs
#1,514,536
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from BMC Primary Care
#134
of 2,359 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#35,209
of 445,948 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Primary Care
#4
of 47 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 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 2,359 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 445,948 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 47 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.