| Title |
From papers to practices: district level priority setting processes and criteria for family planning, maternal, newborn and child health interventions in Tanzania
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Women's Health, October 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1472-6874-11-46 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Dereck Chitama, Rob Baltussen, Evert Ketting, Switbert Kamazima, Anna Nswilla, Phares GM Mujinja |
| Abstract |
Successful priority setting is increasingly known to be an important aspect in achieving better family planning, maternal, newborn and child health (FMNCH) outcomes in developing countries. However, far too little attention has been paid to capturing and analysing the priority setting processes and criteria for FMNCH at district level. This paper seeks to capture and analyse the priority setting processes and criteria for FMNCH at district level in Tanzania. Specifically, we assess the FMNCH actor's engagement and understanding, the criteria used in decision making and the way criteria are identified, the information or evidence and tools used to prioritize FMNCH interventions at district level in Tanzania. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 4 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 131 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 2% |
| Indonesia | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 126 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 34 | 26% |
| Researcher | 21 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 11 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 7% |
| Other | 7 | 5% |
| Other | 22 | 17% |
| Unknown | 27 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 34 | 26% |
| Social Sciences | 24 | 18% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 19 | 15% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 5% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 3 | 2% |
| Other | 13 | 10% |
| Unknown | 32 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 25 November 2011.
All research outputs
#7,409,591
of 22,655,397 outputs
Outputs from BMC Women's Health
#778
of 1,777 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#46,745
of 139,967 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Women's Health
#8
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,655,397 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,777 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% 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 139,967 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.