↓ Skip to main content

Countdown to 2015 country case studies: what have we learned about processes and progress towards MDGs 4 and 5?

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
46 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
260 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
Countdown to 2015 country case studies: what have we learned about processes and progress towards MDGs 4 and 5?
Published in
BMC Public Health, September 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12889-016-3401-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Corrina Moucheraud, Helen Owen, Neha S. Singh, Courtney Kuonin Ng, Jennifer Requejo, Joy E. Lawn, Peter Berman, the Countdown Case Study Collaboration Group

Abstract

Countdown to 2015 was a multi-institution consortium tracking progress towards Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) 4 and 5. Case studies to explore factors contributing to progress (or lack of progress) in reproductive, maternal, newborn and child health (RMNCH) were undertaken in: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, China, Ethiopia, Kenya, Malawi, Niger, Pakistan, Peru, and Tanzania. This paper aims to identify cross-cutting themes on how and why these countries achieved or did not achieve MDG progress. Applying a standard evaluation framework, analyses of impact, coverage and equity were undertaken, including a mixed methods analysis of how these were influenced by national context and coverage determinants (including health systems, policies and financing). The majority (7/10) of case study countries met MDG-4 with over two-thirds reduction in child mortality, but none met MDG-5a for 75 % reduction in maternal mortality, although six countries achieved >75 % of this target. None achieved MDG-5b regarding reproductive health. Rates of reduction in neonatal mortality were half or less that for post-neonatal child mortality. Coverage increased most for interventions administered at lower levels of the health system (e.g., immunisation, insecticide treated nets), and these experienced substantial political and financial support. These interventions were associated with ~30-40 % of child lives saved in 2012 compared to 2000, in Ethiopia, Malawi, Peru and Tanzania. Intrapartum care for mothers and newborns -- which require higher-level health workers, more infrastructure, and increased community engagement -- showed variable increases in coverage, and persistent equity gaps. Countries have explored different approaches to address these problems, including shifting interventions to the community setting and tasks to lower-level health workers. These Countdown case studies underline the importance of consistent national investment and global attention for achieving improvements in RMNCH. Interventions with major global investments achieved higher levels of coverage, reduced equity gaps and improvements in associated health outcomes. Given many competing priorities for the Sustainable Development Goals era, it is essential to maintain attention to the unfinished RMNCH agenda, particularly health systems improvements for maternal and neonatal outcomes where progress has been slower, and to invest in data collection for monitoring progress and for rigorous analyses of how progress is achieved in different contexts.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 260 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 260 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 60 23%
Researcher 40 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 30 12%
Student > Bachelor 16 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 4%
Other 37 14%
Unknown 67 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 61 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 41 16%
Social Sciences 39 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 2%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 6 2%
Other 27 10%
Unknown 80 31%
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 26 September 2016.
All research outputs
#7,153,464
of 22,889,074 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#7,515
of 14,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#108,360
of 322,305 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#177
of 353 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,889,074 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 14,923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.9. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% 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 322,305 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 353 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.