| Title |
Aligning vertical interventions to health systems: a case study of the HIV monitoring and evaluation system in South Africa
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Health Research Policy and Systems, January 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1478-4505-10-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Mary Kawonga, Duane Blaauw, Sharon Fonn |
| Abstract |
Like many low- and middle-income countries, South Africa established a dedicated HIV monitoring and evaluation (M&E) system to track the national response to HIV/AIDS. Its implementation in the public health sector has however not been assessed. Since responsibility for health services management lies at the district (sub-national) level, this study aimed to assess the extent to which the HIV M&E system is integrated with the overall health system M&E function at district level. This study describes implementation of the HIV M&E system, determines the extent to which it is integrated with the district health information system (DHIS), and evaluates factors influencing HIV M&E integration. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 | 3 | 43% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 14% |
| Kenya | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 2 | 29% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 7 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 211 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 4 | 2% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| South Africa | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 204 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 51 | 24% |
| Researcher | 42 | 20% |
| Student > Bachelor | 21 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 20 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 13 | 6% |
| Other | 21 | 10% |
| Unknown | 43 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 68 | 32% |
| Social Sciences | 31 | 15% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 21 | 10% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 10 | 5% |
| Computer Science | 5 | 2% |
| Other | 30 | 14% |
| Unknown | 46 | 22% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 27 October 2021.
All research outputs
#4,833,840
of 25,559,053 outputs
Outputs from Health Research Policy and Systems
#654
of 1,397 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#38,463
of 252,868 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Research Policy and Systems
#2
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,559,053 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,397 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. 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 252,868 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 5 of them.