↓ Skip to main content

Design and implementation of community engagement interventions towards healthcare quality improvement in Ghana: a methodological approach

Overview of attention for article published in Health Economics Review, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#18 of 430)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
114 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
Design and implementation of community engagement interventions towards healthcare quality improvement in Ghana: a methodological approach
Published in
Health Economics Review, October 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13561-016-0128-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Robert Kaba Alhassan, Edward Nketiah-Amponsah, Daniel Kojo Arhinful

Abstract

Nearly four decades after the Alma-Ata declaration of 1978 on the need for active client/community participation in healthcare, not much has been achieved in this regard particularly in resource constrained countries like Ghana, where over 70 % of communities in rural areas access basic healthcare from primary health facilities. Systematic Community Engagement (SCE) in healthcare quality assessment remains a grey area in many health systems in Africa, albeit the increasing importance in promoting universal access to quality basic healthcare services. Design and implement SCE interventions that involve existing community groups engaged in healthcare quality assessment in 32 intervention primary health facilities. The SCE interventions form part of a four year randomized controlled trial (RCT) in the Greater Accra and Western regions of Ghana. Community groups (n = 52) were purposively recruited and engaged to assess non-technical components of healthcare quality, recommend quality improvement plans and reward best performing facilities. The interventions comprised of five cyclical implementation steps executed for nearly a year. Wilcoxon sign rank test was used to ascertain differences in group perceptions of service quality during the first and second assessments, and ordered logistic regression analysis performed to determine factors associated with groups' perception of healthcare quality. Healthcare quality was perceived to be lowest in non-technical areas such as: information provision to clients, directional signs in clinics, drug availability, fairness in queuing, waiting times, and information provision on use of suggestion boxes and feedback on clients' complaints. Overall, services in private health facilities were perceived to be better than public facilities (p < 0.05). Community groups dominated by artisans and elderly members (60(+) years) had better perspectives on healthcare quality than youthful groups (Coef. =1.78; 95 % CI = [-0.16 3.72]) and other categories of community groups (Coef. = 0.98; 95 % CI = [-0.10 2.06]). Non-technical components of healthcare quality remain critical to clients and communities served by primary healthcare providers. The SCE concept is a potential innovative and complementary quality improvement strategy that could help enhance client experiences, trust and confidence in healthcare providers. SCE interventions are more cost effective, community-focused and could easily be scaled-up and sustained by local health authorities.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 114 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 114 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 20 18%
Researcher 16 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 8%
Student > Bachelor 8 7%
Other 17 15%
Unknown 32 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 24 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 11%
Social Sciences 12 11%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 5 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 4%
Other 20 18%
Unknown 37 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 23. 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 11 July 2020.
All research outputs
#1,398,407
of 22,896,955 outputs
Outputs from Health Economics Review
#18
of 430 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,535
of 314,045 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Economics Review
#2
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,896,955 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 430 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 314,045 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.