↓ Skip to main content

A survey of the governance capacity of national public health associations to enhance population health

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (51st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
71 Mendeley
Title
A survey of the governance capacity of national public health associations to enhance population health
Published in
BMC Public Health, March 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12889-016-2935-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

James Chauvin, Mahesh Shukla, James Rice, Laetitia Rispel

Abstract

National public health associations (PHAs) are key partners with governments and communities to improve, protect and promote the public's health. Governance and organizational capacity are among the key determinants of a PHA's effectiveness as an advocate for appropriate public health policies and practice. During 2014, the World Federation of Public Health Associations (WFPHA) conducted an on-line survey of its 82 PHA members, to identify the state of organizational governance of national public health associations, as well as the factors that influence optimal organizational governance. The survey consisted of 13 questions and focused on the main elements of organizational governance: cultivating accountability; engaging stakeholders; setting shared direction; stewarding resources; and, continuous governance enhancement. Four questions included a qualitative open-ended response for additional comments. The survey data were analyzed using Microsoft Excel. The qualitative data was analyzed using thematic content analysis RESULTS: Responses were received from 62 PHAs, constituting a 75.6 % response rate. The two most important factors that support governance effectiveness were a high degree of integrity and ethical behavior of the PHA's leaders (77 %) and the competence of people serving on the PHA's governing body (76 %). The lack of financial resources was considered as the most important factor that negatively affected organizational governance effectiveness (73 %). The lack of mentoring for future PHA leaders; ineffective or incompetent leadership; lack of understanding about good governance practices; and lack of accurate information for strategic planning were identified as factors influencing PHA governance effectiveness. Critical elements for PHA sustainability included diversity, gender-responsiveness and inclusive governance practices, and strategies to build the future generation of public health leaders. National PHA have a responsibility to put into place the practices and infrastructure that enhance organizational governance. This will enhance their ability to be effective advocates for policies and practices that enhance, protect and promote the public's health. The WFPHA has an important role to play in providing the technical assistance and financial resources to assist PHAs in attaining and sustaining a higher level of governance capacity.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 71 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Belgium 1 1%
Unknown 70 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 16 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 11%
Researcher 5 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 6%
Student > Postgraduate 3 4%
Other 10 14%
Unknown 25 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 14%
Social Sciences 8 11%
Business, Management and Accounting 7 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 8%
Unspecified 4 6%
Other 12 17%
Unknown 24 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 18 July 2016.
All research outputs
#6,969,842
of 22,856,968 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#7,350
of 14,888 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#97,731
of 299,532 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#105
of 219 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,856,968 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,888 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.9. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% 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 299,532 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 219 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.