↓ Skip to main content

Measuring inequalities in the distribution of health workers: the case of Tanzania

Overview of attention for article published in Human Resources for Health, January 2009
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
71 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
161 Mendeley
citeulike
5 CiteULike
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
Measuring inequalities in the distribution of health workers: the case of Tanzania
Published in
Human Resources for Health, January 2009
DOI 10.1186/1478-4491-7-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michael A Munga, Ottar Mæstad

Abstract

The overall human resource shortages and the distributional inequalities in the health workforce in many developing countries are well acknowledged. However, little has been done to measure the degree of inequality systematically. Moreover, few attempts have been made to analyse the implications of using alternative measures of health care needs in the measurement of health workforce distributional inequalities. Most studies have implicitly relied on population levels as the only criterion for measuring health care needs. This paper attempts to achieve two objectives. First, it describes and measures health worker distributional inequalities in Tanzania on a per capita basis; second, it suggests and applies additional health care needs indicators in the measurement of distributional inequalities.

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 161 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Tanzania, United Republic of 4 2%
India 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
New Zealand 1 <1%
Other 2 1%
Unknown 147 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 36 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 31 19%
Researcher 20 12%
Student > Postgraduate 12 7%
Student > Bachelor 11 7%
Other 43 27%
Unknown 8 5%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 65 40%
Social Sciences 30 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 8 5%
Other 19 12%
Unknown 14 9%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 06 July 2016.
All research outputs
#2,621,382
of 11,432,212 outputs
Outputs from Human Resources for Health
#304
of 613 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,813
of 186,622 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Human Resources for Health
#11
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,432,212 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 613 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% 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 186,622 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.