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 |
Assessing the feasibility of eHealth and mHealth: a systematic review and analysis of initiatives implemented in Kenya
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Research Notes, February 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13104-017-2416-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Martin Njoroge, Dejan Zurovac, Esther A. A. Ogara, Jane Chuma, Doris Kirigia |
| Abstract |
The growth of Information and Communication Technology in Kenya has facilitated implementation of a large number of eHealth projects in a bid to cost-effectively address health and health system challenges. This systematic review aims to provide a situational analysis of eHealth initiatives being implemented in Kenya, including an assessment of the areas of focus and geographic distribution of the health projects. The search strategy involved peer and non-peer reviewed sources of relevant information relating to projects under implementation in Kenya. The projects were examined based on strategic area of implementation, health purpose and focus, geographic location, evaluation status and thematic area. A total of 114 citations comprising 69 eHealth projects fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The eHealth projects included 47 mHealth projects, 9 health information system projects, 8 eLearning projects and 5 telemedicine projects. In terms of projects geographical distribution, 24 were executed in Nairobi whilst 15 were designed to have a national coverage but only 3 were scaled up. In terms of health focus, 19 projects were mainly on primary care, 17 on HIV/AIDS and 11 on maternal and child health (MNCH). Only 8 projects were rigorously evaluated under randomized control trials. This review discovered that there is a myriad of eHealth projects being implemented in Kenya, mainly in the mHealth strategic area and focusing mostly on primary care and HIV/AIDs. Based on our analysis, most of the projects were rarely evaluated. In addition, few projects are implemented in marginalised areas and least urbanized counties with more health care needs, notwithstanding the fact that adoption of information and communication technology should aim to improve health equity (i.e. improve access to health care particularly in remote parts of the country in order to reduce geographical inequities) and contribute to overall health systems strengthening. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Colombia | 2 | 15% |
| United States | 2 | 15% |
| Spain | 1 | 8% |
| Canada | 1 | 8% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 6 | 46% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 10 | 77% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 23% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 459 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 2 | <1% |
| Unknown | 457 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 102 | 22% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 54 | 12% |
| Researcher | 52 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 30 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 24 | 5% |
| Other | 85 | 19% |
| Unknown | 112 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 87 | 19% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 61 | 13% |
| Computer Science | 42 | 9% |
| Social Sciences | 38 | 8% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 19 | 4% |
| Other | 82 | 18% |
| Unknown | 130 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 07 December 2021.
All research outputs
#2,696,422
of 23,668,780 outputs
Outputs from BMC Research Notes
#354
of 4,306 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#57,437
of 425,601 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Research Notes
#4
of 64 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,668,780 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,306 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its peers.
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 425,601 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 64 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.