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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Exploring the potential for using results-based financing to address non-communicable diseases in low- and middle-income countries
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Public Health, February 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2458-13-92 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Chelsey R Beane, Suzanne Havala Hobbs, Harsha Thirumurthy |
| Abstract |
The burden of disease due to non-communicable diseases (NCDs) is rising in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and funding for global health is increasingly limited. As a large contributor of development assistance for health, the US government has the potential to influence overall trends in NCDs. Results-based financing (RBF) has been proposed as a strategy to increase aid effectiveness and efficiency through incentives for positive performance and results in health programs, but its potential for addressing NCDs has not been explored. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 1 | 50% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 122 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Cameroon | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 120 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 37 | 30% |
| Researcher | 21 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 21 | 17% |
| Other | 8 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 7% |
| Other | 19 | 16% |
| Unknown | 8 | 7% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 29 | 24% |
| Social Sciences | 22 | 18% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 19 | 16% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 16 | 13% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 5% |
| Other | 20 | 16% |
| Unknown | 10 | 8% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 04 February 2013.
All research outputs
#15,262,171
of 22,694,633 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#11,268
of 14,769 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#182,253
of 282,530 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#222
of 271 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,694,633 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,769 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 16th percentile – i.e., 16% 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 282,530 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 271 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.