↓ Skip to main content

The 'diagonal' approach to Global Fund financing: a cure for the broader malaise of health systems?

Overview of attention for article published in Globalization and Health, March 2008
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 (92nd percentile)

Readers on

mendeley
486 Mendeley
citeulike
2 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
The 'diagonal' approach to Global Fund financing: a cure for the broader malaise of health systems?
Published in
Globalization and Health, March 2008
DOI 10.1186/1744-8603-4-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gorik Ooms, Wim Van Damme, Brook K Baker, Paul Zeitz, Ted Schrecker

Abstract

The potentially destructive polarisation between 'vertical' financing (aiming for disease-specific results) and 'horizontal' financing (aiming for improved health systems) of health services in developing countries has found its way to the pages of Foreign Affairs and the Financial Times. The opportunity offered by 'diagonal' financing (aiming for disease-specific results through improved health systems) seems to be obscured in this polarisation. In April 2007, the board of the Global Fund to fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria agreed to consider comprehensive country health programmes for financing. The new International Health Partnership Plus, launched in September 2007, will help low-income countries to develop such programmes. The combination could lead the Global Fund to fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria to a much broader financing scope.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 486 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 5 1%
United Kingdom 4 <1%
Netherlands 2 <1%
South Africa 2 <1%
Canada 2 <1%
Belgium 2 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Sierra Leone 1 <1%
Other 5 1%
Unknown 461 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 117 24%
Student > Bachelor 76 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 62 13%
Researcher 58 12%
Other 28 6%
Other 87 18%
Unknown 58 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 163 34%
Social Sciences 123 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 32 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 17 3%
Arts and Humanities 14 3%
Other 59 12%
Unknown 78 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 15 May 2024.
All research outputs
#2,426,302
of 26,148,761 outputs
Outputs from Globalization and Health
#406
of 1,257 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,552
of 97,546 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Globalization and Health
#3
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,148,761 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 1,257 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% 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 97,546 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.