↓ Skip to main content

Building coherence and synergy among global health initiatives

Overview of attention for article published in Health Research Policy and Systems, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

5 tweeters


1 Dimensions

Readers on

45 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.
Building coherence and synergy among global health initiatives
Published in
Health Research Policy and Systems, December 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12961-015-0062-3
Pubmed ID

Fabio Zicker, Miriam Faid, John Reeder, Garry Aslanyan


The fast growth of global health initiatives (GHIs) has raised concerns regarding achievement of coherence and synergy among distinct, complementary and sometimes competing activities. Herein, we propose an approach to compare GHIs with regard to their main purpose and operational aspects, using the Special Programme for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases (TDR/WHO) as a case study. The overall goal is to identify synergies and optimize efforts to provide solutions to reduce the burden of diseases. Twenty-six long-established GHIs were identified from among initiatives previously associated/partnered with TDR/WHO. All GHIs had working streams that would benefit from linking to the capacity building or implementation research focus of TDR. Individual profiles were created using a common template to collect information on relevant parameters. For analytical purposes, GHIs were simultaneously clustered in five and eight groups according to their 'intended outcome' and 'operational framework', respectively. A set of specific questions was defined to assess coherence/alignment against a TDR reference profile by attributing a score, which was subsequently averaged per GHI cluster. GHI alignment scores for intended outcome were plotted against scores for operational framework; based on the analysis of coherence/alignment with TDR functions and operations, a risk level (high, medium or low) of engagement was attributed to each GHI. The process allowed a bi-dimensional ranking of GHIs with regards to how adequately they fit with or match TDR features and perspectives. Overall, more consistence was observed with regard to the GHIs' main goals and expected outcomes than with their operational aspects, reflecting the diversity of GHI business models. Analysis of coherence indicated an increasing common trend for enhancing the engagement of developing country stakeholders, building research capacity and optimization of knowledge management platforms in support of improved access to healthcare. The process used offers a broader approach that could be adapted by other GHIs to build coherence and synergy with peer organizations and helps highlight the potential contribution of each GHI in the new era of sustainable development goals. Emerging opportunities and new trends suggest that engagement between GHIs should be selective and tailored to ensure efficient collaborations.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 45 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 20%
Student > Master 8 18%
Researcher 5 11%
Other 4 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 7%
Other 6 13%
Unknown 10 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 7 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 13%
Business, Management and Accounting 5 11%
Computer Science 3 7%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 4%
Other 12 27%
Unknown 10 22%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 10 December 2015.
All research outputs
of 12,360,978 outputs
Outputs from Health Research Policy and Systems
of 652 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 326,823 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Research Policy and Systems
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,360,978 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 652 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% 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 326,823 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 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 37 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.