↓ Skip to main content

Shifting human resources for health in the context of ART provision: qualitative and quantitative findings from the Lablite baseline study

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

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
161 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
Shifting human resources for health in the context of ART provision: qualitative and quantitative findings from the Lablite baseline study
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, November 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12913-016-1891-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Misheck J. Nkhata, Margaret Muzambi, Deborah Ford, Adrienne K. Chan, George Abongomera, Harriet Namata, Ivan Mambule, Annabelle South, Paul Revill, Caroline Grundy, Travor Mabugu, Levison Chiwaula, James Hakim, Cissy Kityo, Andrew Reid, Elly Katabira, Sumeet Sodhi, Charles F. Gilks, Diana M. Gibb, Janet Seeley, Fabian Cataldo, the Lablite team

Abstract

Lablite is an implementation project supporting and studying decentralized antiretroviral therapy (ART) rollout to rural communities in Malawi, Uganda and Zimbabwe. Task shifting is one of the strategies to deal with shortage of health care workers (HCWs) in ART provision. Evaluating Human Resources for Health (HRH) optimization is essential for ensuring access to ART. The Lablite project started with a baseline survey whose aim was to describe and compare national and intercountry delivery of ART services including training, use of laboratories and clinical care. A cross-sectional survey was conducted between October 2011 and August 2012 in a sample of 81 health facilities representing different regions, facility levels and experience of ART provision in Malawi, Uganda and Zimbabwe. Using a questionnaire, data were collected on facility characteristics, human resources and service provision. Thirty three (33) focus group discussions were conducted with HCWs in a subset of facilities in Malawi and Zimbabwe. The survey results showed that in Malawi and Uganda, primary care facilities were run by non-physician clinical officers/medical assistants while in Zimbabwe, they were run by nurses/midwives. Across the three countries, turnover of staff was high especially among nurses. Between 10 and 20% of the facilities had at least one clinical officer/medical assistant leave in the 3 months prior to the study. Qualitative results show that HCWs in ART and non-ART facilities perceived a shortage of staff for all services, even prior to the introduction of ART provision. HCWs perceived the introduction of ART as having increased workload. In Malawi, the number of people on ART and hence the workload for HCWs has further increased following the introduction of Option B+ (ART initiation and life-long treatment for HIV positive pregnant and lactating women), resulting in extended working times and concerns that the quality of services have been affected. For some HCWs, perceived low salaries, extended working schedules, lack of training opportunities and inadequate infrastructure for service provision were linked to low job satisfaction and motivation. ART has been decentralized to lower level facilities in the context of an ongoing HRH crisis and staff shortage, which may compromise the provision of high-quality ART services. Task shifting interventions need adequate resources, relevant training opportunities, and innovative strategies to optimize the operationalization of new WHO treatment guidelines which continue to expand the number of people eligible for ART.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 161 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 161 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 31 19%
Researcher 26 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 6%
Student > Bachelor 10 6%
Other 33 20%
Unknown 38 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 39 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 30 19%
Social Sciences 14 9%
Business, Management and Accounting 6 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 3%
Other 21 13%
Unknown 46 29%
Attention Score in Context

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 25 November 2016.
All research outputs
#15,395,259
of 22,903,988 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#5,577
of 7,663 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#169,071
of 270,392 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#82
of 103 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,903,988 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 7,663 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 17th percentile – i.e., 17% 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 270,392 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 103 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.