↓ Skip to main content

Opening the black box of transfer systems in public sector health services in a Western state in India

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
7 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
47 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
Opening the black box of transfer systems in public sector health services in a Western state in India
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, August 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12913-016-1675-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bhaskar Purohit, Tim Martineau, Kabir Sheikh

Abstract

Limited research on Posting and Transfer (P&T) policies and systems in the public sector health services and the reluctance for an open debate on the issue makes P&T as a black box. Limited research on P&T in India suggests that P&T policies and systems are either non-existent, weak, poorly implemented or characterized by corruption. Hence the current study aimed at opening the "black box" of P&T systems in public sector health services in India by assessing the implementation gaps between P&T policies and their actual implementation. This was a qualitative study carried out in Department of Health, in a Western State in India. To understand the extant P&T policies, a systems map was first developed with the help of document review and Key Informant (KI) Interviews. Next systems audit was carried out to assess the actual implementation of transfer policies by interviewing Medical Officers (MOs), the group mainly affected by the P&T policies. Job histories were constructed from the interviews to understand transfer processes like frequencies of transfers and to assess if transfer rules were adhered. The analysis is based on a synthesis of document review, 19 in-depth interviews with MOs working with state health department and five in-depth interviews with Key Informants (KIs). Framework analysis approach was used to analyze data using NVIVO. The state has a generic transfer guideline applicable to all government officers but there is no specific transfer policy or guideline for government health personnel. The generic transfer guidelines are weakly implemented indicating a significant gap between policy and actual implementation. The formal transfer guidelines are undermined by a parallel system in which desirable posts are attained, retained or sometimes given up by the use of political connections and money. MOs' experiences of transfers were marked by perceptions of unfairness and irregularities reflected through interviews as well as the job histories. The generic transfer rules and ambiguity in how transfers are treated may explain the discrepancy between policy and implementation leading to systems abuse. This discrepancy could have negative influence on MOs' morale which could in turn affect distribution of MOs. Where possible, ambiguity in the rules should be avoided and a greater transparency on implementation of the transfer rules is needed. However, it may not be possible to make any significant improvements to P&T policies and how they are implemented until the external pressure that creates parallel systems is greatly reduced in translating HR policy into HR practice. Effective P&T policies and implementation may have important implications for organizational performance and may help to improve Human Resource (HR) policy and HR expertise. Also there is a greater need for transparency on implementation of the rules. However, it may not be possible to make any significant improvements to P&T policies and how they are implemented until the external pressure that creates parallel systems is greatly reduced.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 47 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 19%
Student > Master 7 15%
Student > Bachelor 7 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 11%
Other 4 9%
Other 12 26%
Unknown 3 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 8 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 15%
Business, Management and Accounting 5 11%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 5 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 9%
Other 8 17%
Unknown 10 21%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 01 April 2018.
All research outputs
#3,256,712
of 19,172,905 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#1,443
of 6,467 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#56,713
of 274,837 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#3
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,172,905 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,467 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 274,837 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 5 of them.