↓ Skip to main content

Assessing the predictors for training in management amongst hospital managers and chief executive officers: a cross-sectional study of hospitals in Abuja, Nigeria

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
47 Mendeley
Title
Assessing the predictors for training in management amongst hospital managers and chief executive officers: a cross-sectional study of hospitals in Abuja, Nigeria
Published in
BMC Medical Education, June 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12909-018-1230-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ogbonnia Godfrey Ochonma, Stephen Ikechukwu Nwatu

Abstract

There is a compelling need for management training amongst hospital managers in Nigeria mostly because management was never a part of the curricula in medical schools and this has resulted in their deficiencies in effective policymaking, planning and bottom line management. There has been no study to the best of our knowledge on the need and likely factors that may influence the acquisition of such training by hospital managers and this in effect was the reason for this study. Data for this study came from a cross-sectional survey distributed amongst management staff in twenty five (25) hospitals that were purposively selected. One hundred and twenty five (125) questionnaires were distributed, out of which one hundred and four (104) were answered and returned giving a response rate of 83.2%. Descriptive and Inferential statistics were used to summarize the results. Decisions were made at 5% level of significance. A binary logistic regression was performed on the data to predict the logit of being formally and informally trained in health management. These statistical techniques were done using the IBM SPSS version 20. The result revealed a high level of formal and informal trainings amongst the respondent managers. In formal management training, only few had no training (27.9%) while in informal management training, all had obtained a form of training of which in-service training predominates (84.6%). Most of the administrators/managers also had the intention of attending healthcare management programme within the next five years (62.5%). Socio-demographically, age (p = .032) and academic qualification (p < .001) had significant influence on training. Number of hospital beds (p < .001) and number of staff (p < .001) including managers' current designation (p < .001) also had significant influence on training. Our work did establish the critical need for both formal and informal trainings in health management for health care managers. Emphasis on training should be directed at younger managers who are the least likely to acquire such trainings, the smaller and private hospitals who are less likely to encourage such trainings amongst their staff and the least educated amongst health managers.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 47 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Lecturer 5 11%
Student > Master 5 11%
Researcher 4 9%
Student > Bachelor 3 6%
Other 2 4%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 24 51%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 5 11%
Engineering 4 9%
Computer Science 3 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 4%
Other 7 15%
Unknown 24 51%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 September 2020.
All research outputs
#14,133,034
of 23,090,520 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#1,913
of 3,384 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#179,167
of 328,563 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#49
of 88 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,090,520 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,384 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% 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 328,563 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 88 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.