↓ Skip to main content

Data collection tools for maternal and child health in humanitarian emergencies: a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in Bulletin of the World Health Organization, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source

Readers on

mendeley
122 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
Data collection tools for maternal and child health in humanitarian emergencies: a systematic review
Published in
Bulletin of the World Health Organization, June 2015
DOI 10.2471/blt.14.148429
Pubmed ID
Authors

Thidar Pyone, Fiona Dickinson, Robbie Kerr, Cynthia Boschi-Pinto, Matthews Mathai, Nynke van den Broek

Abstract

To describe tools used for the assessment of maternal and child health issues in humanitarian emergency settings. We systematically searched MEDLINE, Web of Knowledge and POPLINE databases for studies published between January 2000 and June 2014. We also searched the websites of organizations active in humanitarian emergencies. We included studies reporting the development or use of data collection tools concerning the health of women and children in humanitarian emergencies. We used narrative synthesis to summarize the studies. We identified 100 studies: 80 reported on conflict situations and 20 followed natural disasters. Most studies (76/100) focused on the health status of the affected population while 24 focused on the availability and coverage of health services. Of 17 different data collection tools identified, 14 focused on sexual and reproductive health, nine concerned maternal, newborn and child health and four were used to collect information on sexual or gender-based violence. Sixty-nine studies were done for monitoring and evaluation purposes, 18 for advocacy, seven for operational research and six for needs assessment. Practical and effective means of data collection are needed to inform life-saving actions in humanitarian emergencies. There are a wide variety of tools available, not all of which have been used in the field. A simplified, standardized tool should be developed for assessment of health issues in the early stages of humanitarian emergencies. A cluster approach is recommended, in partnership with operational researchers and humanitarian agencies, coordinated by the World Health Organization.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

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

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 122 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 122 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 5%
Other 3 2%
Student > Bachelor 3 2%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 2%
Lecturer 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 106 87%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 5%
Social Sciences 3 2%
Arts and Humanities 2 2%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 2%
Environmental Science 1 <1%
Other 1 <1%
Unknown 107 88%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 26 March 2018.
All research outputs
#8,783,469
of 25,986,827 outputs
Outputs from Bulletin of the World Health Organization
#83
of 286 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#96,551
of 279,759 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Bulletin of the World Health Organization
#6
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,986,827 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 286 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% 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 279,759 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 55% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.