| Title |
The Situation of Safe Surgery and Anaesthesia in Tanzania: A Systematic Review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
World Journal of Surgery, August 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00268-018-4767-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Karolina Nyberger, Desmond T. Jumbam, James Dahm, Sarah Maongezi, Ahmed Makuwani, Ntuli A. Kapologwe, Boniface Nguhuni, Swagoto Mukhopadhay, Katherine R. Iverson, Erastus Maina, Steve Kisakye, Patrick Mwai, Augustino Hellar, David Barash, Cheri Reynolds, John G. Meara, Isabelle Citron |
| Abstract |
Improvement in the surgical system requires intersectoral coordination. To achieve this, the development of National Surgical, Obstetric, and Anaesthesia Plans (NSOAPS) has been recommended. One of the first steps of NSOAP development is situational analysis. On the ground situational analyses can be resource intensive and often duplicative. In 2016, the Ministry of Health of Tanzania issued a directive for the creation of an NSOAP. This systematic review aimed to assess if a comprehensive situational analysis could be achieved with existing data. These data would be used for evidence-based priority setting for NSOAP development and streamline any additional data collection needed. A systematic literature review of scientific literature, grey literature, and policy documents was performed as per PRISMA. Extraction was performed for all articles relating to the five NSOAPS domains: infrastructure, service delivery, workforce, information management, and financing. 1819 unique articles were generated. Full-text screening produced 135 eligible articles; 46 were relevant to surgical infrastructure, 53 to workforce, 81 to service delivery, 11 to finance, and 15 to information management. Rich qualitative and quantitative data were available for each domain. Despite little systematic data collection around SOA, a thorough literature review provides significant evidence which often have a broader scope, longer timeline and better coverage than can be achieved through snapshot-stratified samples of directed on the ground assessments. Evidence from the review was used during stakeholder discussion to directly inform the NSOAP priorities in Tanzania. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 70 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 13 | 19% |
| Tanzania, United Republic of | 9 | 13% |
| United Kingdom | 4 | 6% |
| Kenya | 2 | 3% |
| Canada | 2 | 3% |
| South Africa | 2 | 3% |
| Sweden | 2 | 3% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 1% |
| Australia | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 7 | 10% |
| Unknown | 27 | 39% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 42 | 60% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 18 | 26% |
| Scientists | 5 | 7% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 5 | 7% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 112 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 112 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 13 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 12 | 11% |
| Researcher | 10 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 9% |
| Other | 5 | 4% |
| Other | 22 | 20% |
| Unknown | 40 | 36% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 32 | 29% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 8 | 7% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 6 | 5% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 4% |
| Unspecified | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 13 | 12% |
| Unknown | 45 | 40% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 52. 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 13 October 2018.
All research outputs
#792,358
of 24,960,237 outputs
Outputs from World Journal of Surgery
#57
of 4,524 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#17,095
of 339,021 outputs
Outputs of similar age from World Journal of Surgery
#2
of 47 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,960,237 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,524 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 339,021 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 94% 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 97% of its contemporaries.