↓ Skip to main content

A cost-minimization approach to planning the geographical distribution of health facilities

Overview of attention for article published in Health Policy & Planning, September 2001
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
39 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A cost-minimization approach to planning the geographical distribution of health facilities
Published in
Health Policy & Planning, September 2001
DOI 10.1093/heapol/16.3.264
Pubmed ID
Authors

M M Khan, D Ali, Z Ferdousy, A Al-Mamun

Abstract

This paper illustrates a method of planning the geographic distribution of health facilities in order to maximize the social benefits achievable from the investment. Data from Bangladesh have been used to determine the optimal distribution of emergency obstetric care (EOC) facilities in the country using the estimates of average social cost per woman. Costs incurred by households, including the costs associated with maternal mortality, tend to increase with increasing radius of a facility's catchment area. The average facility-based costs tend to decline with increasing radius due to lower per capita capital expenditures. The summation of these two average cost functions generates a U-shaped curve. In this research, the minimum point of the aggregated average cost curve defines the 'optimal' radius of a health facility. The catchment area defined by the optimal radius minimizes the average social cost of providing EOC services in a region. The empirical analysis suggests that the optimal radius for the 20 regions of Bangladesh varies from about 6 to 12 km. If the optimal radius of the catchment area is used in planning health centre locations, Bangladesh will need to set up 450 EOC facilities; currently there are only 90 such facilities.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 3%
Colombia 1 3%
United States 1 3%
Bangladesh 1 3%
Unknown 35 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 26%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 15%
Student > Master 5 13%
Other 4 10%
Student > Postgraduate 3 8%
Other 7 18%
Unknown 4 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 28%
Social Sciences 7 18%
Engineering 4 10%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 4 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 5%
Other 6 15%
Unknown 5 13%
Attention Score in Context

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 31 March 2022.
All research outputs
#8,534,976
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Health Policy & Planning
#1,679
of 2,368 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,139
of 40,836 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Policy & Planning
#10
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,368 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.9. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% 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 40,836 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.