↓ Skip to main content

Analysis of human resources for health strategies and policies in 5 countries in Sub-Saharan Africa, in response to GFATM and PEPFAR-funded HIV-activities

Overview of attention for article published in Globalization and Health, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
146 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
Analysis of human resources for health strategies and policies in 5 countries in Sub-Saharan Africa, in response to GFATM and PEPFAR-funded HIV-activities
Published in
Globalization and Health, January 2013
DOI 10.1186/1744-8603-9-52
Pubmed ID
Authors

Johann Cailhol, Isabel Craveiro, Tavares Madede, Elsie Makoa, Thubelihle Mathole, Ann Parsons, Luc Van Leemput, Regien Biesma, Ruairi Brugha, Baltazar Chilundo, Uta Lehmann, Gilles Dussault, Wim Van Damme, David Sanders

Abstract

Global Health Initiatives (GHIs), aiming at reducing the impact of specific diseases such as Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV), have flourished since 2000. Amongst these, PEPFAR and GFATM have provided a substantial amount of funding to countries affected by HIV, predominantly for delivery of antiretroviral therapy (ARV) and prevention strategies. Since the need for additional human resources for health (HRH) was not initially considered by GHIs, countries, to allow ARV scale-up, implemented short-term HRH strategies, adapted to GHI-funding conditionality. Such strategies differed from one country to another and slowly evolved to long-term HRH policies. The processes and content of HRH policy shifts in 5 countries in Sub-Saharan Africa were examined.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 146 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Ethiopia 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 142 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 42 29%
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 14%
Researcher 21 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 5%
Other 7 5%
Other 32 22%
Unknown 15 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 46 32%
Social Sciences 31 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 20 14%
Business, Management and Accounting 7 5%
Unspecified 3 2%
Other 15 10%
Unknown 24 16%

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 21 November 2013.
All research outputs
#4,178,265
of 7,962,094 outputs
Outputs from Globalization and Health
#405
of 449 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#66,987
of 144,769 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Globalization and Health
#18
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 7,962,094 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 449 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.1. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% 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 144,769 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.