↓ Skip to main content

Post-doctoral research fellowship as a health policy and systems research capacity development intervention: a case of the CHESAI initiative

Overview of attention for article published in Health Research Policy and Systems, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
42 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
116 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
Post-doctoral research fellowship as a health policy and systems research capacity development intervention: a case of the CHESAI initiative
Published in
Health Research Policy and Systems, December 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12961-016-0159-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Martina Lembani, Gina Teddy, Dintle Molosiwa, Boroto Hwabamungu

Abstract

Building capacity in health policy and systems research (HPSR), especially in low- and middle-income countries, remains a challenge. Various approaches have been suggested and implemented by scholars and institutions using various forms of capacity building to address challenges regarding HPSR development. The Collaboration for Health Systems Analysis and Innovation (CHESAI) - a collaborative effort between the Universities of Cape Town and the Western Cape Schools of Public Health - has employed a non-research based post-doctoral research fellowship (PDRF) as a way of building African capacity in the field of HPSR by recruiting four post-docs. In this paper, we (the four post-docs) explore whether a PDRF is a useful approach for capacity building for the field of HPSR using our CHESAI PDRF experiences. We used personal reflections of our written narratives providing detailed information regarding our engagement with CHESAI. The narratives were based on a question guide around our experiences through various activities and their impacts on our professional development. The data analysis process was highly iterative in nature, involving repeated meetings among the four post-docs to reflect, discuss and create themes that evolved from the discussions. The CHESAI PDRF provided multiple spaces for our engagement and capacity development in the field of HPSR. These spaces provided us with a wide range of learning experiences, including teaching and research, policy networking, skills for academic writing, engaging practitioners, co-production and community dialogue. Our reflections suggest that institutions providing PDRF such as this are valuable if they provide environments endowed with adequate resources, good leadership and spaces for innovation. Further, the PDRFs need to be grounded in a community of HPSR practice, and provide opportunities for the post-docs to gain an in-depth understanding of the broader theoretical and methodological underpinnings of the field. The study concludes that PDRF is a useful approach to capacity building in HPSR, but it needs be embedded in a community of practice for fellows to benefit. More academic institutions in Africa need to adopt innovative and flexible support for emerging leaders, researchers and practitioners to strengthen our health systems.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 42 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 116 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Malaysia 1 <1%
Unknown 114 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 20 17%
Researcher 15 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 8%
Student > Bachelor 7 6%
Other 18 16%
Unknown 37 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 20 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 16 14%
Social Sciences 9 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 6 5%
Engineering 5 4%
Other 17 15%
Unknown 43 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 25. 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 January 2017.
All research outputs
#1,589,543
of 26,281,970 outputs
Outputs from Health Research Policy and Systems
#149
of 1,434 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#30,805
of 428,010 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Research Policy and Systems
#3
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,281,970 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 1,434 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 428,010 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.