↓ Skip to main content

Accounting for variations in ART program sustainability outcomes in health facilities in Uganda: a comparative case study analysis

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

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (51st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
85 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
Accounting for variations in ART program sustainability outcomes in health facilities in Uganda: a comparative case study analysis
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, October 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12913-016-1833-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Henry Zakumumpa, Sara Bennett, Freddie Ssengooba

Abstract

Uganda implemented a national ART scale-up program at public and private health facilities between 2004 and 2009. Little is known about how and why some health facilities have sustained ART programs and why others have not sustained these interventions. The objective of the study was to identify facilitators and barriers to the long-term sustainability of ART programs at six health facilities in Uganda which received donor support to commence ART between 2004 and 2009. A case-study approach was adopted. Six health facilities were purposively selected for in-depth study from a national sample of 195 health facilities across Uganda which participated in an earlier study phase. The six health facilities were placed in three categories of sustainability; High Sustainers (2), Low Sustainers (2) and Non- Sustainers (2). Semi-structured interviews with ART Clinic managers (N = 18) were conducted. Questionnaire data were analyzed (N = 12). Document review augmented respondent data. Based on the data generated, across-case comparative analyses were performed. Data were collected between February and June 2015. Several distinguishing features were found between High Sustainers, and Low and Non-Sustainers' ART program characteristics. High Sustainers had larger ART programs with higher staffing and patient volumes, a broader 'menu' of ART services and more stable program leadership compared to the other cases. High Sustainers associated sustained ART programs with multiple funding streams, robust ART program evaluation systems and having internal and external program champions. Low and Non Sustainers reported similar barriers of shortage and attrition of ART-proficient staff, low capacity for ART program reporting, irregular and insufficient supply of ARV drugs and a lack of alignment between ART scale-up and their for-profit orientation in three of the cases. We found that ART program sustainability was embedded in a complex system involving dynamic interactions between internal (program champion, staffing strength, M &E systems, goal clarity) and external drivers (donors, ARVs supply chain, patient demand). ART program sustainability contexts were distinguished by the size of health facility and ownership-type. The study's implications for health systems strengthening in resource-limited countries are discussed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 85 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 85 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 18%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 8%
Student > Bachelor 7 8%
Researcher 7 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 8%
Other 12 14%
Unknown 30 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 22%
Engineering 8 9%
Social Sciences 8 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 9%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 4%
Other 7 8%
Unknown 32 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 22 June 2020.
All research outputs
#12,674,864
of 22,896,955 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#4,105
of 7,657 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#152,740
of 316,298 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#93
of 159 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,896,955 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,657 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% 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 316,298 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 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 159 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.