↓ Skip to main content

Identifying and characterising health policy and system-relevant documents in Uganda: a scoping review to develop a framework for the development of a one-stop shop

Overview of attention for article published in Health Research Policy and Systems, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
169 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
Identifying and characterising health policy and system-relevant documents in Uganda: a scoping review to develop a framework for the development of a one-stop shop
Published in
Health Research Policy and Systems, February 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12961-017-0170-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Boniface Mutatina, Robert Basaza, Ekwaro Obuku, John N. Lavis, Nelson Sewankambo

Abstract

Health policymakers in low- and middle-income countries continue to face difficulties in accessing and using research evidence for decision-making. This study aimed to identify and provide a refined categorisation of the policy documents necessary for building the content of a one-stop shop for documents relevant to health policy and systems in Uganda. The on-line resource is to facilitate timely access to well-packaged evidence for decision-making. We conducted a scoping review of Uganda-specific, health policy, and systems-relevant documents produced between 2000 and 2014. Our methods borrowed heavily from the 2005 Arksey and O'Malley approach for scoping reviews and involved five steps, which that include identification of the research question; identification of relevant documents; screening and selection of the documents; charting of the data; and collating, summarising and reporting results. We searched for the documents from websites of relevant government institutions, non-governmental organisations, health professional councils and associations, religious medical bureaus and research networks. We presented the review findings as numerical analyses of the volume and nature of documents and trends over time in the form of tables and charts. We identified a total of 265 documents including policies, strategies, plans, guidelines, rapid response summaries, evidence briefs for policy, and dialogue reports. The top three clusters of national priority areas addressed in the documents were governance, coordination, monitoring and evaluation (28%); disease prevention, mitigation, and control (23%); and health education, promotion, environmental health and nutrition (15%). The least addressed were curative, palliative care, rehabilitative services and health infrastructure, each addressed in three documents (1%), and early childhood development in one document. The volume of documents increased over the past 15 years; however, the distribution of the different document types over time has not been uniform. The review findings are necessary for mobilising and packaging the local policy-relevant documents in Uganda in a one-stop shop; where policymakers could easily access them to address pressing questions about the health system and interventions. The different types of available documents and the national priority areas covered provide a good basis for building and organising the content in a meaningful way for the resource.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 169 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 169 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 33 20%
Researcher 24 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 13 8%
Student > Bachelor 12 7%
Other 28 17%
Unknown 41 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 37 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 26 15%
Social Sciences 23 14%
Business, Management and Accounting 8 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 4%
Other 27 16%
Unknown 42 25%
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 02 July 2017.
All research outputs
#13,032,354
of 23,314,015 outputs
Outputs from Health Research Policy and Systems
#929
of 1,232 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#197,373
of 422,076 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Research Policy and Systems
#19
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,314,015 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 1,232 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% 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 422,076 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 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.