↓ Skip to main content

How can the use of data within the immunisation programme be increased in order to improve data quality and ensure greater accountability in the health system? A protocol for implementation science…

Overview of attention for article published in Health Research Policy and Systems, May 2018
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)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
8 tweeters
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
51 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
How can the use of data within the immunisation programme be increased in order to improve data quality and ensure greater accountability in the health system? A protocol for implementation science study
Published in
Health Research Policy and Systems, May 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12961-018-0312-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Binyam Tilahun, Alemayehu Teklu, Arielle Mancuso, Zeleke Abebaw, Kassahun Dessie, Desalegn Zegeye

Abstract

Immunisation remains one of the most important and cost-effective interventions to reduce vaccine-preventable child morbidity, disability and mortality. Health programmes like the Expanded Program of Immunization rely on complex decision-making and strong local level evidence is important to effectively and efficiently utilise limited resources. Lack of data use for decision-making at each level of the health system remains the main challenge in most developing countries. While there is much evidence on data quality and how to improve it, there is a lack of sufficient evidence on why the use of data for decision-making at each level of the health system is low. Herein, we describe a comprehensive implementation science study that will be conducted to identify organisational, technical and individual level factors affecting local data use at each level of the Ethiopian health system. We will apply a mixed methods approach using key informant interviews and document reviews. The qualitative data will be gathered through key informant interviews using a semi-structured guide with open- and closed-ended questions with four categories of respondents, namely decision-makers, data producers, data users and community representatives at the federal, regional, zonal, woreda and community levels of the health system. The document review will be conducted on selected reports and feedback documented at different levels of the health system. Data will be collected from July 2017 to March 2018. Descriptive statistics will be analysed for the quantitative study using SPSS version 20 software and thematic content analysis will be performed for the qualitative part using NVivo software. Appropriate and timely use of health and health-related information for decision-making is an essential element in the process of transforming the health sector. The findings of the study will inform stakeholders at different levels on the institutionalisation of evidence-based practice in immunisation programmes.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 51 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 24%
Student > Bachelor 7 14%
Lecturer 4 8%
Researcher 3 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 4%
Other 7 14%
Unknown 16 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 18%
Social Sciences 4 8%
Computer Science 2 4%
Environmental Science 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 22 43%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 29 April 2019.
All research outputs
#1,438,834
of 14,747,541 outputs
Outputs from Health Research Policy and Systems
#262
of 820 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#44,681
of 274,312 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Research Policy and Systems
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,747,541 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 820 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% 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 274,312 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 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