↓ Skip to main content

The human resource implications of improving financial risk protection for mothers and newborns in Zimbabwe

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, May 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (60th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
135 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
The human resource implications of improving financial risk protection for mothers and newborns in Zimbabwe
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, May 2013
DOI 10.1186/1472-6963-13-197
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yotamu Chirwa, Sophie Witter, Malvern Munjoma, Wilson Mashange, Tim Ensor, Barbara McPake, Shungu Munyati

Abstract

A paradigm shift in global health policy on user fees has been evident in the last decade with a growing consensus that user fees undermine equitable access to essential health care in many low and middle income countries. Changes to fees have major implications for human resources for health (HRH), though the linkages are rarely explicitly examined. This study aimed to examine the inter-linkages in Zimbabwe in order to generate lessons for HRH and fee policies, with particular respect to reproductive, maternal and newborn health (RMNH). The study used secondary data and small-scale qualitative fieldwork (key informant interview and focus group discussions) at national level and in one district in 2011. The past decades have seen a shift in the burden of payments onto households. Implementation of the complex rules on exemptions is patchy and confused. RMNH services are seen as hard for families to afford, even in the absence of complications. Human resources are constrained in managing current demand and any growth in demand by high external and internal migration, and low remuneration, amongst other factors. We find that nurses and midwives are evenly distributed across the country (at least in the public sector), though doctors are not. This means that for four provinces, there are not enough doctors to provide more complex care, and only three provinces could provide cover in the event of all deliveries taking place in facilities. This analysis suggests that there is a strong case for reducing the financial burden on clients of RMNH services and also a pressing need to improve the terms and conditions of key health staff. Numbers need to grow, and distribution is also a challenge, suggesting the need for differentiated policies in relation to rural areas, especially for doctors and specialists. The management of user fees should also be reviewed, particularly for non-Ministry facilities, which do not retain their revenues, and receive limited investment in return from the municipalities and district councils. Overall public investment in health needs to grow.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 135 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 1%
Indonesia 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 130 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 31 23%
Lecturer 22 16%
Researcher 16 12%
Student > Bachelor 11 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 4%
Other 21 16%
Unknown 29 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 41 30%
Medicine and Dentistry 21 16%
Social Sciences 17 13%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 5 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 5 4%
Other 12 9%
Unknown 34 25%

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 05 June 2013.
All research outputs
#3,321,930
of 7,379,409 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#1,585
of 2,775 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#46,390
of 120,203 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#67
of 113 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 7,379,409 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 54th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,775 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% 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 120,203 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 60% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 113 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.