↓ Skip to main content

A scoping review of mentorship of health personnel to improve the quality of health care in low and middle-income countries

Overview of attention for article published in Globalization and Health, October 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 (83rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
17 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
80 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
250 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
A scoping review of mentorship of health personnel to improve the quality of health care in low and middle-income countries
Published in
Globalization and Health, October 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12992-017-0301-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Patricia Schwerdtle, Julia Morphet, Helen Hall

Abstract

Most Low and Middle-Income Countries are facing a crisis in human resources for health which compromises their ability to meet health related targets outlined by the Sustainable Development Goals. The crisis is not limited to the availability of health personnel but also the quality of care and the training and development of the workforce. To address these challenges, evidence based education strategies are urgently required. Mentorship has been found to improve health personnel performance in High-Income Countries however, little is known about its role in Low and Middle-Income Countries. To address this gap in understanding, we conducted a scoping review of the current literature. CINAHL, EMBASE and OVID Medline were systematically searched along with grey literature for peer-reviewed research papers specific to the research question. A six-step scoping review framework was utilised to identify the relevant literature and summarise the pertinent findings. The initial search identified 592 records, and five papers, reporting on four studies, were retained for data charting and extraction. All four studies described a positive effect of mentorship on the quality of care outcomes. The results are collated according to features of the intervention including mentor training, mentor-mentee ratios, mentorship model, intervention intensity and key findings in terms of outcome measures. This review identifies a paucity of evidence of mentorship in this context however, current evidence supports the assertion that effective mentorship contributes to the improvement of certain quality of care outcomes. The features of successful mentorship interventions are outlined and the implications are discussed in the context of existing evidence.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 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 250 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 250 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 34 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 29 12%
Researcher 24 10%
Student > Bachelor 19 8%
Other 14 6%
Other 44 18%
Unknown 86 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 49 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 39 16%
Social Sciences 14 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 7 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 2%
Other 36 14%
Unknown 100 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 05 October 2022.
All research outputs
#2,765,403
of 23,917,011 outputs
Outputs from Globalization and Health
#445
of 1,139 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#52,690
of 325,715 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Globalization and Health
#9
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,917,011 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,139 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% 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 325,715 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 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 66% of its contemporaries.