↓ Skip to main content

The use of a Toolkit for health needs assessment on neural tube defects in Argentina

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Community Genetics, October 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
34 Mendeley
Title
The use of a Toolkit for health needs assessment on neural tube defects in Argentina
Published in
Journal of Community Genetics, October 2012
DOI 10.1007/s12687-012-0120-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Boris Groisman, Rosa Liascovich, Pablo Barbero, Corinna Alberg, Sowmiya Moorthie, Luis Nacul, Gurdeep S. Sagoo

Abstract

Health needs assessment (HNA) is a commonly used process for those working in public health. The PHG Foundation has developed a Toolkit to provide users with a stepwise approach for undertaking a HNA on birth defects. We report the findings from using the Toolkit to examine needs in relation to policies and programs, services, and interventions for neural tube defects (NTDs) in Argentina. The trend over the last few decades is one of decline in infant mortality from nutritional and infectious causes, thus further increasing the relative importance of birth defects. The observed prevalence of NTDs is consistent with that reported internationally. Since 2002 folic acid fortification (FAF) has been mandatory by law, and different studies have shown at least a 50 % decrease in the birth prevalence of NTDs after FAF. In Argentina, there is inequity between the public and non-public health sectors. The birth prevalence of NTDs seems lower in the non-public sector, possibly as a result of better nutritional status of women, higher access to folic acid supplementation, and earlier prenatal diagnosis followed by termination of pregnancy (ToP) in non-public hospitals. Although illegal, ToP is believed to be widespread, with better access for people of higher socioeconomic status. Through the process of HNA, we identified several unmet needs regarding registration of cases, public and professional education, legislation, and organization of care pathways. In our experience, the Toolkit brought together people working on the same issue, and it engaged and motivated experts and stakeholders to work together to tackle the problem.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 34 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 24%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 9%
Other 2 6%
Librarian 2 6%
Other 4 12%
Unknown 10 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 18%
Arts and Humanities 2 6%
Social Sciences 2 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 11 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 09 October 2012.
All research outputs
#20,169,675
of 22,681,577 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Community Genetics
#328
of 361 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#153,409
of 172,538 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Community Genetics
#9
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,681,577 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 361 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 172,538 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.