↓ Skip to main content

Programme Reporting Standards (PRS) for improving the reporting of sexual, reproductive, maternal, newborn, child and adolescent health programmes

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
30 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
108 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
Programme Reporting Standards (PRS) for improving the reporting of sexual, reproductive, maternal, newborn, child and adolescent health programmes
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, August 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12874-017-0384-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anna E. Kågesten, Özge Tunçalp, Anayda Portela, Moazzam Ali, Nhan Tran, A. Metin Gülmezoglu

Abstract

Information about design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation is central to understand the impact of programmes within the field of sexual, reproductive, maternal, newborn, child and adolescent health (SRMNCAH). Existing reporting guidelines do not orient on reporting of contextual and implementation issues in sufficient detail. We therefore developed Programme Reporting Standards (PRS) to be used by SRMNCAH programme implementers and researchers. Building on the first step of the PRS development (a systematic review to identify reporting items), we conducted a three-round online Delphi consensus survey with experts. Consensus was defined a-priori as 80% agreement of items as essential. This was followed by a technical consultation with a group of experts to refine the items, definitions and their structuring. The revised PRS was piloted to assess its relevance to current SRMNCAH programme reports and identify key issues regarding the use of the PRS. Of the 81 participants invited to the Delphi survey, 20 responded to all three rounds. In the final round, 27 items received consensus as essential; three items were ranked as "borderline" essential; 20 items as supplementary. The items were subsequently revised, followed by a technical consultation with 29 experts to further review and refine the PRS. The feedback resulted in substantial changes to the structure and content of the PRS into 24 items across five domains: Programme overview; Programme components and implementation; Monitoring of Implementation; Evaluation and Results; and Synthesis. This version was used in a piloting exercise, where questions regarding how much information to report and how to comment on the quality of the information reported were addressed. All items were kept in the PRS following the pilot although minor changes were made to the flow and description of items. The PRS 1.0 is the result of a structured, collaborative process, including methods to incorporate input from SRMNCAH stakeholders. The World Health Organization will develop a document that explains the items in greater detail, and will also apply the PRS to on-going initiatives. We welcome continuous input from the field, while it is being used, to improve its relevance and usefulness.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 30 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 108 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 108 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 14 13%
Student > Bachelor 13 12%
Student > Master 11 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 6%
Other 23 21%
Unknown 32 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 24 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 22 20%
Social Sciences 11 10%
Psychology 6 6%
Unspecified 4 4%
Other 8 7%
Unknown 33 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 24. 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 14 November 2017.
All research outputs
#1,586,673
of 25,292,378 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#188
of 2,257 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#30,559
of 323,374 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#6
of 47 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,292,378 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,257 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.4. 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 323,374 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 47 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.