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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
Title |
Is the process for selecting indigents to receive free care in Burkina Faso equitable?
|
---|---|
Published in |
BMC Public Health, November 2014
|
DOI | 10.1186/1471-2458-14-1158 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Nicole Atchessi, Valéry Ridde, Maria-Victoria Zunzunégui |
Abstract |
In Burkina Faso, patients are required to pay for healthcare. This constitutes a barrier to access for indigents, who are the most disadvantaged. User fee exemption systems have been created to facilitate their access. A community-based initiative was thus implemented in a rural region of Burkina Faso to select the worst-off and exempt them from user fees. The final selection was not based on pre-defined criteria, but rather on community members' tacit knowledge of the villagers. The objective of this study was to analyze the equitable nature of this community-based selection process. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Senegal | 1 | 33% |
Spain | 1 | 33% |
Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
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 % |
---|---|---|
India | 3 | 4% |
Unknown | 68 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Master | 11 | 15% |
Researcher | 9 | 13% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 10% |
Student > Bachelor | 7 | 10% |
Librarian | 4 | 6% |
Other | 11 | 15% |
Unknown | 22 | 31% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Nursing and Health Professions | 10 | 14% |
Medicine and Dentistry | 10 | 14% |
Social Sciences | 8 | 11% |
Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 5 | 7% |
Business, Management and Accounting | 4 | 6% |
Other | 8 | 11% |
Unknown | 26 | 37% |
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 21 November 2014.
All research outputs
#14,789,079
of 22,769,322 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#10,879
of 14,840 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#145,445
of 262,838 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#203
of 270 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,769,322 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,840 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 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% 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 262,838 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 270 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.