↓ Skip to main content

Comparing a paper based monitoring and evaluation system to a mHealth system to support the national community health worker programme, South Africa: an evaluation

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, August 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
215 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
Comparing a paper based monitoring and evaluation system to a mHealth system to support the national community health worker programme, South Africa: an evaluation
Published in
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, August 2014
DOI 10.1186/1472-6947-14-69
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sunisha Neupane, Willem Odendaal, Irwin Friedman, Waasila Jassat, Helen Schneider, Tanya Doherty

Abstract

In an attempt to address a complex disease burden, including improving progress towards MDGs 4 and 5, South Africa recently introduced a re-engineered Primary Health Care (PHC) strategy, which has led to the development of a national community health worker (CHW) programme. The present study explored the development of a cell phone-based and paper-based monitoring and evaluation (M&E) system to support the work of the CHWs.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 215 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Indonesia 2 <1%
South Africa 2 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Sierra Leone 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 207 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 51 24%
Researcher 29 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 28 13%
Student > Postgraduate 18 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 17 8%
Other 41 19%
Unknown 31 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 45 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 39 18%
Social Sciences 27 13%
Computer Science 24 11%
Engineering 7 3%
Other 29 13%
Unknown 44 20%
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 09 September 2014.
All research outputs
#13,411,291
of 22,760,687 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#983
of 1,984 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#109,614
of 230,541 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#17
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,760,687 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,984 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% 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 230,541 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.