↓ Skip to main content

Increased fairness in priority setting processes within the health sector: the case of Kapiri-Mposhi District, Zambia

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
75 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
Increased fairness in priority setting processes within the health sector: the case of Kapiri-Mposhi District, Zambia
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, February 2014
DOI 10.1186/1472-6963-14-75
Pubmed ID
Authors

Joseph M Zulu, Charles Michelo, Carol Msoni, Anna-Karin Hurtig, Jens Byskov, Astrid Blystad

Abstract

The challenge of priority setting (PS) in health care within contexts of severe resource limitations has continued to receive attention. Accountability for Reasonableness (AFR) has emerged as a useful framework to guide the implementation of PS processes. In 2006, the AFR approach to enhance legitimate and fair PS was introduced by researchers and decision makers within the health sector in the EU funded research project entitled 'Response to Accountable priority setting for Trust in health systems' (REACT). The project aimed to strengthen fairness and accountability in the PS processes of health systems at district level in Zambia, Tanzania and Kenya. This paper focuses on local perceptions and practices of fair PS (baseline study) as well as at the evolution of such perceptions and practices in PS following an AFR based intervention (evaluation study), carried out at district level in Kapiri-Mposhi District in Zambia.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users 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 75 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Unknown 74 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 20%
Student > Master 10 13%
Researcher 8 11%
Librarian 4 5%
Other 4 5%
Other 14 19%
Unknown 20 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 19 25%
Medicine and Dentistry 13 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Environmental Science 2 3%
Other 10 13%
Unknown 21 28%
Attention Score in Context

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 24 February 2014.
All research outputs
#14,190,698
of 22,745,803 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#5,052
of 7,613 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#120,666
of 223,888 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#89
of 133 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,745,803 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,613 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% 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 223,888 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 133 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.