↓ Skip to main content

Are our ‘UHC systems’ learning systems? Piloting an assessment tool and process in six African countries

Overview of attention for article published in Health Research Policy and Systems, August 2018
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 (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
58 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
121 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
Are our ‘UHC systems’ learning systems? Piloting an assessment tool and process in six African countries
Published in
Health Research Policy and Systems, August 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12961-018-0340-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

E. Akhnif, J. A. Kiendrebeogo, A. Idrissi Azouzzi, Z. Adam, C. P. Makoutode, S. Mayaka Manitu, Z. Njoumemi, A. Gamble Kelley, B. Meessen

Abstract

If there is one universal recommendation to countries wanting to make progress towards Universal Health Coverage (UHC), it is to develop the learning capacities that will enable them to 'find their own way' - this is especially true for countries struggling with fragmented health financing systems. This paper explores results from a multi-country study whose main aim was to assess the extent to which UHC systems and processes at country level operate as 'learning systems'. This study is part of a multi-year action-research project implemented by two communities of practice active in Africa. For this specific investigation, we adapted the concept of the learning organisation to so-called 'UHC systems'. Our framework organises the assessment around 92 questions divided into blocks, sub-blocks and levels of learning, with a seven scale score in a standardised questionnaire developed during a protocol and methodology workshop attended by all the research teams. The study was implemented in six francophone African countries by national research teams involving researchers and cadres of the ministries involved in the UHC policy. Across the six countries, the questionnaire was administrated to 239 UHC actors. Data were analysed per country, per blocks and sub-blocks, by levels of learning and per question. The study confirms the feasibility and relevance of adapting the learning organisation framework to UHC systems. All countries scored between 4 and 5 for all the sub-blocks of the learning system. The study and the validation workshops organised in the six countries indicate that the tool is particularly powerful to assess weaknesses within a specific country. However, some remarkable patterns also emerge from the cross-country analysis. Our respondents recognise the leadership developed at governmental level for UHC, but they also report some major weaknesses in the UHC system, especially the absence of a learning agenda and the limited use of data. Countries will not progress towards UHC without strong learning systems. Our tool has allowed us to document the situation in six countries, create some awareness at country level and initiate a participatory action-oriented process.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 58 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 121 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 121 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 19 16%
Researcher 18 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 5%
Student > Postgraduate 4 3%
Other 15 12%
Unknown 45 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 20 17%
Social Sciences 13 11%
Business, Management and Accounting 5 4%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 2%
Other 12 10%
Unknown 48 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 47. 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
#901,759
of 25,765,370 outputs
Outputs from Health Research Policy and Systems
#66
of 1,410 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,757
of 341,761 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Research Policy and Systems
#6
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,765,370 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,410 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 341,761 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 38 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.