↓ Skip to main content

Signal functions for measuring the ability of health facilities to provide abortion services: an illustrative analysis using a health facility census in Zambia

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
34 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
123 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
Signal functions for measuring the ability of health facilities to provide abortion services: an illustrative analysis using a health facility census in Zambia
Published in
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, May 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12884-016-0872-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Oona M. R. Campbell, Estela M. L. Aquino, Bellington Vwalika, Sabine Gabrysch

Abstract

Annually, around 44 million abortions are induced worldwide. Safe termination of pregnancy (TOP) services can reduce maternal mortality, but induced abortion is illegal or severely restricted in many countries. All abortions, particularly unsafe induced abortions, may require post-abortion care (PAC) services to treat complications and prevent future unwanted pregnancy. We used a signal-function approach to look at abortion care services and illustrated its utility with secondary data from Zambia. We refined signal functions for basic and comprehensive TOP and PAC services, including family planning (FP), and assessed functions currently being collected via multi-country facility surveys. We then used the 2005 Zambian Health Facility Census to estimate the proportion of 1369 health facilities that could provide TOP and PAC services under three scenarios. We linked facility and population data, and calculated the proportion of the Zambian population within reach of such services. Relevant signal functions are already collected in five facility assessment tools. In Zambia, 30 % of facilities could potentially offer basic TOP services, 3.7 % comprehensive TOP services, 2.6 % basic PAC services, and 0.3 % comprehensive PAC services (four facilities). Capability was highest in hospitals, except for FP functions. Nearly two-thirds of Zambians lived within 15 km of a facility theoretically capable of providing basic TOP, and one-third within 15 km of comprehensive TOP services. However, requiring three doctors for non-emergency TOP, as per Zambian law, reduced potential access to TOP services to 30 % of the population. One-quarter lived within 15 km of basic PAC and 13 % of comprehensive PAC services. In a scenario not requiring FP functions, one-half and one-third of the population were within reach of basic and comprehensive PAC respectively. There were huge urban-rural disparities in access to abortion care services. Comprehensive PAC services were virtually unavailable to the rural population. Secondary data from facility assessments can highlight gaps in abortion service provision and coverage, but it is necessary to consider TOP and PAC separately. This approach, especially when combined with population data using geographic coordinates, can also be used to model the impact of various policy scenarios on access, such as requiring three medical doctors for non-emergency TOP. Data collection instruments could be improved with minor modifications and used for multi-country comparisons.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 123 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 122 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 34 28%
Researcher 19 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 9%
Student > Postgraduate 9 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 5%
Other 9 7%
Unknown 35 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 30 24%
Social Sciences 19 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 13%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 2%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 2%
Other 12 10%
Unknown 40 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 18 May 2016.
All research outputs
#13,777,129
of 22,870,727 outputs
Outputs from BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
#2,578
of 4,205 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#162,339
of 313,736 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
#39
of 61 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,870,727 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,205 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.8. 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 313,736 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 61 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.