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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
A systematic review of Health Technology Assessment tools in sub-Saharan Africa: methodological issues and implications
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Health Research Policy and Systems, December 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1478-4505-12-66 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Christine Kriza, Jill Hanass-Hancock, Emmanuel Ankrah Odame, Nicola Deghaye, Rashid Aman, Philip Wahlster, Mayra Marin, Nicodemus Gebe, Willis Akhwale, Isabelle Wachsmuth, Peter L. Kolominsky-Rabas |
| Abstract |
Health technology assessment (HTA) is mostly used in the context of high- and middle-income countries. Many "resource-poor" settings, which have the greatest need for critical assessment of health technology, have a limited basis for making evidence-based choices. This can lead to inappropriate use of technologies, a problem that could be addressed by HTA that enables the efficient use of resources, which is especially crucial in such settings. There is a lack of clarity about which HTA tools should be used in these settings. This research aims to provide an overview of proposed HTA tools for "resource-poor" settings with a specific focus on sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 40% |
| Canada | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 2 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 80% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 142 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 1% |
| Lebanon | 1 | <1% |
| Ethiopia | 1 | <1% |
| South Africa | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 137 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 19 | 13% |
| Researcher | 18 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 16 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 11 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 10 | 7% |
| Other | 33 | 23% |
| Unknown | 35 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 41 | 29% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 13 | 9% |
| Social Sciences | 12 | 8% |
| Engineering | 10 | 7% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 7 | 5% |
| Other | 25 | 18% |
| Unknown | 34 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 September 2021.
All research outputs
#3,844,894
of 23,505,010 outputs
Outputs from Health Research Policy and Systems
#545
of 1,241 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#54,194
of 364,931 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Research Policy and Systems
#6
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,505,010 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,241 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% 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 364,931 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 85% of its contemporaries.
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 4 of them.