↓ Skip to main content

How countries cope with competing demands and expectations: perspectives of different stakeholders on priority setting and resource allocation for health in the era of HIV and AIDS

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, December 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
110 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
How countries cope with competing demands and expectations: perspectives of different stakeholders on priority setting and resource allocation for health in the era of HIV and AIDS
Published in
BMC Public Health, December 2012
DOI 10.1186/1471-2458-12-1071
Pubmed ID
Authors

Françoise Jenniskens, Georges Tiendrebeogo, Anne Coolen, Lucie Blok, Seni Kouanda, Fuseini Sataru, Andriamampianina Ralisimalala, Victor Mwapasa, Mbela Kiyombo, David Plummer

Abstract

Health systems have experienced unprecedented stress in recent years, and as yet no consensus has emerged as to how to deal with the multiple burden of disease in the context of HIV and AIDS and other competing health priorities. Priority setting is essential, yet this is a complex, multifaceted process. Drawing on a study conducted in five African countries, this paper explores different stakeholders' perceptions of health priorities, how priorities are defined in practice, the process of resource allocation for HIV and Health and how different stakeholders perceive this.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 110 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 2%
United Kingdom 2 2%
Canada 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Burkina Faso 1 <1%
Unknown 103 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 21 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 16%
Researcher 17 15%
Student > Postgraduate 8 7%
Student > Bachelor 7 6%
Other 22 20%
Unknown 17 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 33 30%
Social Sciences 21 19%
Business, Management and Accounting 8 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 7%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 5 5%
Other 18 16%
Unknown 17 15%

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 02 January 2013.
All research outputs
#9,985,400
of 16,252,997 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#8,144
of 11,170 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#139,332
of 261,037 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#733
of 1,060 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,252,997 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,170 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.1. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% 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 261,037 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1,060 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.