↓ Skip to main content

South African primary health care allied health clinical practice guidelines: the big picture

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
57 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
South African primary health care allied health clinical practice guidelines: the big picture
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, January 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12913-018-2837-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

J. M. Dizon, K. A. Grimmer, S. Machingaidze, Q. A. Louw, H. Parker

Abstract

Good quality clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are a vehicle to implementing evidence into allied health (AH) care. This paper reports on the current 'state of play' of CPGs in a lower-to-middle-income country (South Africa), where primary healthcare (PHC) AH activities face significant challenges in terms of ensuring quality service delivery in the face of huge PHC need. A qualitative study was conducted, using semi-structured interviews with purposively-sampled individuals involved in AH PHC CPGs in South Africa. They included national and state government policy-makers, academics and educators, service managers, clinicians, representatives of professional associations, technical writers, and members of informal professional networks. The interview data was transcribed and de-identified, and analysed descriptively by hand-coding. The COREQ statement guided study conduct and reporting. A framework to guide research in other countries into perspectives of AH PHC CPG activities was established. Of the 32 invited, 29 people participated: of these 25 were interviewed and four provided meeting notes. Most participants had multiple professional roles, being engaged concurrently in clinical practice, academia, professional associations and / or government. Key themes comprised Players (sub-themes of sampling frame, participants, advice, role players and collaboration); Guidance (sub-themes of nomenclature, drivers, purpose, evidence sources) and Role of AH in PHC (sub-themes of discipline groupings, disability and rehabilitation, AH recognition). There was consistently-expressed desire for quality guidance to support better quality AH PHC activities around the country. However no international CPGs were used, and there were no South African CPGs specific to local PHC AH practice. The guidance gap was filled by non-evidence-based documents produced often without training, to deal with specific clinical situations. This led to frustration, duplication and fragmentation of effort, confusing nomenclature, and an urgent need for standardised and agreed guidance. We provided a standardised framework to capture perspectives on CPGs activities in other AH PHC settings.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 57 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 14%
Student > Bachelor 6 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 9%
Researcher 5 9%
Other 10 18%
Unknown 13 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 17 30%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 18%
Psychology 4 7%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 4%
Social Sciences 2 4%
Other 9 16%
Unknown 13 23%

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 30 January 2018.
All research outputs
#6,905,326
of 12,439,436 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#2,408
of 4,119 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#152,617
of 341,197 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,439,436 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,119 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% 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 341,197 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 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them