↓ Skip to main content

Building capacity in Clinical Epidemiology in Africa: experiences from Masters programmes

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
40 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
Building capacity in Clinical Epidemiology in Africa: experiences from Masters programmes
Published in
BMC Medical Education, February 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12909-017-0885-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Taryn Young, Celeste Naude, Tania Brodovcky, Tonya Esterhuizen

Abstract

To describe and contrast programmatic offering of Clinical Epidemiology Masters programmes in Africa, to evaluate experiences of graduates and faculty, and assess if graduates are playing roles in research, practice and teaching of Clinical Epidemiology. We searched and identified relevant programmes, reviewed programmatic documentation, interviewed convenors and surveyed graduates. Participants provided informed consent, interviews with faculty were recorded and transcribed for analysis purposes, and graduates participated in an online survey. Five structured Masters programmes requiring health science professionals to complete modules and research projects were assessed. Demand for programmes was high. Graduates enjoyed the variety of modules, preferred blended teaching, and regarded assessments as fair. Graduates felt that career paths were not obvious after graduating. Despite this, some have gone on to promote and teach evidence-based health care, and conduct and disseminate research. Areas of concern raised by faculty were quality assurance; research project initiation, implementation and supervisory capacity; staff availability; funding to support implementation and lack of experiential learning. Although faced with challenges, these programmes build capacity of health professionals to practice in an evidence-informed way, and conduct rigorous research, which are central to advancing the practice of Clinical Epidemiology in Africa.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 40 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 18%
Researcher 7 18%
Student > Bachelor 4 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 8%
Professor 3 8%
Other 9 23%
Unknown 7 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 23%
Social Sciences 5 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 8%
Engineering 2 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Other 7 18%
Unknown 13 33%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 28 February 2017.
All research outputs
#4,283,617
of 14,634,433 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#807
of 2,143 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#91,603
of 257,980 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,634,433 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,143 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% 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 257,980 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 64% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them