↓ Skip to main content

Countdown to 2015 country case studies: what can analysis of national health financing contribute to understanding MDG 4 and 5 progress?

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
157 Mendeley
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.
Title
Countdown to 2015 country case studies: what can analysis of national health financing contribute to understanding MDG 4 and 5 progress?
Published in
BMC Public Health, September 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12889-016-3403-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Carlyn Mann, Courtney Ng, Nadia Akseer, Zulfiqar A Bhutta, Josephine Borghi, Tim Colbourn, Patricia Hernández-Peña, Luis Huicho, Muhammad Ashar Malik, Melisa Martinez-Alvarez, Spy Munthali, Ahmad Shah Salehi, Mekonnen Tadesse, Mohammed Yassin, Peter Berman, On behalf of the Countdown to 2015 Health Finance Working Group

Abstract

Countdown to 2015 (Countdown) supported countries to produce case studies that examine how and why progress was made toward the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) 4 and 5. Analysing how health-financing data explains improvements in RMNCH outcomes was one of the components to the case studies. This paper presents a descriptive analysis on health financing from six Countdown case studies (Afghanistan, Ethiopia, Malawi, Pakistan, Peru, and Tanzania), supplemented by additional data from global databases and country reports on macroeconomic, health financing, demographic, and RMNCH outcome data as needed. It also examines the effect of other contextual factors presented in the case studies to help interpret health-financing data. Dramatic increases in health funding occurred since 2000, where the MDG agenda encouraged countries and donors to invest more resources on health. Most low-income countries relied on external support to increase health spending, with an average 20-64 % of total health spending from 2000 onwards. Middle-income countries relied more on government and household spending. RMNCH funding also increased since 2000, with an average increase of 119 % (2005-2010) for RMNH expenditures (2005-2010) and 165 % for CH expenditures (2005-2011). Progress was made, especially achieving MDG 4, even with low per capita spending; ranging from US$16 to US$44 per child under 5 years among low-income countries. Improvements in distal factors were noted during the time frame of the analysis, including rapid economic growth in Ethiopia, Peru, and Tanzania and improvements in female literacy as documented in Malawi, which are also likely to have contributed to MDG progress and achievements. Increases in health and RMNCH funding accompanied improvements in outcomes, though low-income countries are still very reliant on external financing, and out-of-pocket comprising a growing share of funds in middle-income settings. Enhancements in tracking RMNCH expenditures across countries are still needed to better understand whether domestic and global health financing initiatives lead to improved outcomes as RMNCH continues to be a priority under the Sustainable Development Goals.

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 157 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 156 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 34 22%
Researcher 25 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 6%
Other 8 5%
Other 27 17%
Unknown 42 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 32 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 23 15%
Social Sciences 20 13%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 9 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 5 3%
Other 18 11%
Unknown 50 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 04 November 2016.
All research outputs
#12,965,815
of 22,888,307 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#9,001
of 14,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#160,708
of 322,308 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#213
of 353 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,888,307 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,923 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 38th percentile – i.e., 38% 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 322,308 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 353 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.