↓ Skip to main content

Delivering HIV services in partnership: factors affecting collaborative working in a South African HIV programme

Overview of attention for article published in Globalization and Health, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (52nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
68 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
Delivering HIV services in partnership: factors affecting collaborative working in a South African HIV programme
Published in
Globalization and Health, January 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12992-016-0228-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Geoffrey A. Jobson, Cornelis J. Grobbelaar, Moyahabo Mabitsi, Jean Railton, Remco P. H. Peters, James A. McIntyre, Helen E. Struthers

Abstract

The involvement of Global Health Initiatives (GHIs) in delivering health services in low and middle income countries (LMICs) depends on effective collaborative working at scales from the local to the international, and a single GHI is effectively constructed of multiple collaborations. Research is needed focusing on how collaboration functions in GHIs at the level of health service management. Here, collaboration between local implementing agencies and departments of health involves distinct power dynamics and tensions. Using qualitative data from an evaluation of a health partnership in South Africa, this article examines how organisational power dynamics affected the operation of the partnership across five dimensions of collaboration: governance, administration, organisational autonomy, mutuality, and norms of trust and reciprocity. Managing the tension between the power to provide resources held by the implementing agency and the local Departments' of Health power to access the populations in need of these resources proved critical to ensuring that the collaboration achieved its aims and shaped the way that each domain of collaboration functioned in the partnership. These findings suggest that it is important for public health practitioners to critically examine the ways in which collaboration functions across the scales in which they work and to pay particular attention to how local power dynamics between partner organisations affect programme implementation.

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 68 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 68 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 16%
Researcher 7 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 10%
Librarian 5 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 4%
Other 13 19%
Unknown 22 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 13 19%
Social Sciences 10 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 12%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 3%
Arts and Humanities 2 3%
Other 7 10%
Unknown 26 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 06 February 2017.
All research outputs
#12,904,181
of 22,950,943 outputs
Outputs from Globalization and Health
#848
of 1,108 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#198,893
of 421,787 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Globalization and Health
#16
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,950,943 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,108 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.9. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% 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 421,787 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 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 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.