↓ Skip to main content

The dependency on central government funding of decentralised health systems: experiences of the challenges and coping strategies in the Kongwa District, Tanzania

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, January 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
110 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 dependency on central government funding of decentralised health systems: experiences of the challenges and coping strategies in the Kongwa District, Tanzania
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, January 2014
DOI 10.1186/1472-6963-14-39
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gasto Frumence, Tumaini Nyamhanga, Mughwira Mwangu, Anna-Karin Hurtig

Abstract

Decentralised health systems in Tanzania depend largely on funding from the central government to run health services. Experience has shown that central funding in a decentralised system is not an appropriate approach to ensure the effective and efficient performance of local authorities due to several limitations. One of the limitations is that funds from the central government are not disbursed on a timely basis, which in turn, leads to the serious problem of shortage of financial resources for Council Health Management Teams (CHMT). This paper examines how dependency on central government funding in Tanzania affects health activities in Kongwa district council and the strategies used by the CHMT cope with the situation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 110 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Tanzania, United Republic of 2 2%
Indonesia 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 105 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 30 27%
Researcher 14 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 11%
Student > Bachelor 10 9%
Student > Postgraduate 7 6%
Other 20 18%
Unknown 17 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 26 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 18 16%
Social Sciences 18 16%
Business, Management and Accounting 6 5%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 6 5%
Other 15 14%
Unknown 21 19%
Attention Score in Context

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 May 2014.
All research outputs
#19,854,550
of 24,400,706 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#7,040
of 8,235 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#239,586
of 316,573 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#109
of 125 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,400,706 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,235 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% 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 316,573 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 125 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.