↓ Skip to main content

Interventions for increasing the proportion of health professionals practising in rural and other underserved areas

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
9 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
48 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
309 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Interventions for increasing the proportion of health professionals practising in rural and other underserved areas
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd005314.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Liesl Grobler, Ben J Marais, Sikhumbuzo Mabunda

Abstract

The inequitable distribution of health professionals, within countries, poses an important obstacle to the optimal functioning of health services. To assess the effectiveness of interventions aimed at increasing the proportion of health professionals working in rural and other underserved areas. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, including specialised register of the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group; March 2014), MEDLINE (1966 to March 2014), EMBASE (1988 to March 2014), CINAHL (1982 to March 2014), LILACS (February 2014), Science Citation Index and Social Sciences Citation Index (up to April 2014), Global Health (March 2014) and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (June 2013). We also searched reference lists of all papers and relevant reviews identified, and contacted authors of relevant papers regarding any further published or unpublished work. Randomised trials, non-randomised trials, controlled before-and-after studies and interrupted time series studies evaluating the effects of various interventions (e.g. educational, financial, regulatory or support strategies) on the recruitment or retention, or both, of health professionals in underserved areas. Two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts and assessed full texts of potentially relevant studies for eligibility. Two review authors independently extracted data from eligible studies. For this first update of the original review, we screened 8945 records for eligibility. We retrieved and assessed the full text of 125 studies. Only one study met the inclusion criteria of the review. This interrupted time series study, conducted in Taiwan, found that the implementation of a National Health Insurance scheme in 1995 was associated with improved equity in the geographic distribution of physicians and dentists. We judged the certainty of the evidence provided by this one study very low. There is currently limited reliable evidence regarding the effects of interventions aimed at addressing the inequitable distribution of health professionals. Well-designed studies are needed to confirm or refute findings of observational studies of educational, financial, regulatory and supportive interventions that might influence healthcare professionals' decisions to practice in underserved areas. Governments and medical schools should ensure that when interventions are implemented, their impacts are evaluated using scientifically rigorous methods to establish the true effects of these measures on healthcare professional recruitment and retention in rural and other underserved settings.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 309 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 5 2%
United States 2 <1%
Japan 2 <1%
Canada 2 <1%
South Africa 2 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Bolivia, Plurinational State of 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Other 1 <1%
Unknown 291 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 79 26%
Researcher 46 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 40 13%
Student > Bachelor 27 9%
Unspecified 27 9%
Other 90 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 131 42%
Social Sciences 42 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 40 13%
Unspecified 36 12%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 11 4%
Other 49 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 29. 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 11 June 2019.
All research outputs
#550,548
of 13,210,706 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,775
of 10,528 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,228
of 231,735 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#54
of 270 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,210,706 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,528 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 231,735 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 270 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.