↓ Skip to main content

Competency in supportive supervision: a study of public sector medicines management supervisors in Uganda

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
24 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
Competency in supportive supervision: a study of public sector medicines management supervisors in Uganda
Published in
Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice, October 2017
DOI 10.1186/s40545-017-0121-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rachael Henry, Lynda Nantongo, Anita Katharina Wagner, Martha Embrey, Birna Trap

Abstract

Supportive supervision has been found to be more effective than corrective fault-oriented inspections. Uganda's Ministry of Health in 2012 implemented a comprehensive strategy (SPARS) to build medicines management capacity in public sector health facilities. The approach includes supportive supervision. This structured observational study assesses supportive supervision competency among medicines management supervisors (MMS). The study used structured observations of two groups of five purposely selected MMS-one group supervising facilities with greater medicines management improvement during one year of SPARS and one group with less improvement, based on quantitative metrics. We observed and scored behaviors and skills of supervisors in 11 categories deemed critical for effective and supportive supervision. Supportive supervision was not evenly or adequately implemented, with the median supportive supervision competency score for all observed supervisors being 38%. Supervisors' main strengths were problem identification, data interpretation, education, and providing constructive feedback (45%-47%). Their weakest areas were assuring continuity and setting targets (17%), and most MMS were fair to strong in effective communication, use of tools, and problem solving. MMS of facilities with little improvement in medicines management over time were weak in setting targets and promoting participation. There was a 33 percentage point difference in the median supportive supervision competency scores between MMS of facilities with more versus less improvement (57%-24%) and a 77 percentage point difference in competency between the highest and lowest scoring MMS (77%-0%). We did not find a relationship between MMS experience (number of visits implemented) and their supportive supervision competency or facility improvement in medicines management. However, there is a likely relationship between supportive supervision competency and facility improvement. Competency of MMS in supportive supervision among the sampled MMS was generally weak, but with much individual variation. Our results suggest that MMS' supportive supervision competency is positively related to the SPARS effectiveness scores of the facilities they supervise. We recommend strategies to strengthen supportive supervision behaviors and skills.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 24 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 4 17%
Other 4 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 8%
Lecturer 2 8%
Researcher 2 8%
Other 6 25%
Unknown 4 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 8 33%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 8%
Arts and Humanities 1 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 4%
Other 4 17%
Unknown 5 21%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 01 November 2017.
All research outputs
#7,551,980
of 12,083,996 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice
#127
of 152 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#154,873
of 273,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice
#7
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,083,996 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 152 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% 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 273,554 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.