↓ Skip to main content

The shaded side of the UHC cube: a systematic review of human resources for health management and administration in social health protection schemes

Overview of attention for article published in Health Economics Review, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
5 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
67 Mendeley
Title
The shaded side of the UHC cube: a systematic review of human resources for health management and administration in social health protection schemes
Published in
Health Economics Review, February 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13561-018-0188-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Konrad Obermann, Tata Chanturidze, Bernd Glazinski, Karin Dobberschuetz, Heiko Steinhauer, Jean-Olivier Schmidt

Abstract

Managers and administrators in charge of social protection and health financing, service purchasing and provision play a crucial role in harnessing the potential advantage of prudent organization, management and purchasing of health services, thereby supporting the attainment of Universal Health Coverage. However, very little is known about the needed quantity and quality of such staff, in particular when it comes to those institutions managing mandatory health insurance schemes and purchasing services. As many health care systems in low- and middle-income countries move towards independent institutions (both purchasers and providers) there is a clear need to have good data on staff and administrative cost in different social health protection schemes as a basis for investing in the development of a cadre of health managers and administrators for such schemes. We report on a systematic literature review of human resources in health management and administration in social protection schemes and suggest some aspects in moving research, practical applications and the policy debate forward.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 67 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 9%
Other 5 7%
Researcher 5 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 3%
Other 7 10%
Unknown 30 45%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 9 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 10%
Business, Management and Accounting 7 10%
Social Sciences 5 7%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 4 6%
Other 5 7%
Unknown 30 45%
Attention Score in Context

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 12 April 2021.
All research outputs
#4,545,272
of 23,023,224 outputs
Outputs from Health Economics Review
#75
of 436 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#89,077
of 331,055 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Economics Review
#4
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,023,224 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 436 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 331,055 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 72% 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 4 of them.