↓ Skip to main content

District health manager and mid-level provider perceptions of practice environments in acute obstetric settings in Tanzania: a mixed-method study

Overview of attention for article published in Human Resources for Health, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
145 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
District health manager and mid-level provider perceptions of practice environments in acute obstetric settings in Tanzania: a mixed-method study
Published in
Human Resources for Health, August 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12960-016-0144-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Njoki Ng’ang’a, Mary Woods Byrne, Margaret E. Kruk, Aloisia Shemdoe, Helen de Pinho

Abstract

In sub-Saharan Africa, the capacity of human resources for health (HRH) managers to create positive practice environments that enable motivated, productive, and high-performing HRH is weak. We implemented a unique approach to examining HRH management practices by comparing perspectives offered by mid-level providers (MLPs) of emergency obstetric care (EmOC) in Tanzania to those presented by local health authorities, known as council health management teams (CHMTs). This study was guided by the basic strategic human resources management (SHRM) component model. A convergent mixed-method design was utilized to assess qualitative and quantitative data from the Health Systems Strengthening for Equity: The Power and Potential of Mid-Level Providers project. Survey data was obtained from 837 mid-level providers, 83 of whom participated in a critical incident interview whose aim was to elicit negative events in the practice environment that induced intention to leave their job. HRH management practices were assessed quantitatively in 48 districts with 37 members of CHMTs participating in semi-structured interviews. The eight human resources management practices enumerated in the basic SHRM component model were implemented unevenly. On the one hand, members of CHMTs and mid-level providers agreed that there were severe shortages of health workers, deficient salaries, and an overwhelming workload. On the other hand, members of CHMTs and mid-level providers differed in their perspectives on rewards and allocation of opportunities for in-service training. Although written standards of performance and supervision requirements were available in most districts, they did not reflect actual duties. Members of CHMTs reported high levels of autonomy in key HRH management practices, but mid-level providers disputed the degree to which the real situation on the ground was factored into job-related decision-making by CHMTs. The incongruence in perspectives offered by members of CHMTs and mid-level providers points to deficient HRH management practices, which contribute to poor practice environments in acute obstetric settings in Tanzania. Our findings indicate that members of CHMTs require additional support to adequately fulfill their HRH management role. Further research conducted in low-income countries is necessary to determine the appropriate package of interventions required to strengthen the capacity of members of CHMTs.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 145 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 145 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 26 18%
Student > Master 21 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 3%
Other 24 17%
Unknown 44 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 29 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 19 13%
Social Sciences 16 11%
Business, Management and Accounting 6 4%
Engineering 4 3%
Other 18 12%
Unknown 53 37%
Attention Score in Context

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 20 January 2020.
All research outputs
#7,896,698
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Human Resources for Health
#807
of 1,261 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#125,266
of 378,559 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Human Resources for Health
#27
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,261 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.3. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% 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 378,559 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 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.