↓ Skip to main content

Enablers and barriers to evidence based planning in the district health system in Uganda; perceptions of district health managers

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Readers on

mendeley
93 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
Enablers and barriers to evidence based planning in the district health system in Uganda; perceptions of district health managers
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, February 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12913-017-2059-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dorcus Kiwanuka Henriksson, Florence Ayebare, Peter Waiswa, Stefan Swartling Peterson, Elly K. Tumushabe, Mio Fredriksson

Abstract

The District Health System was endorsed as the key strategy to achieve 'Health for all' during the WHO organized inter-regional meeting in Harare in 1987. Many expectations were put upon the district health system, including planning. Although planning should be evidence based to prioritize activities, in Uganda it has been described as occurring more by chance than by choice. The role of planning is entrusted to the district health managers with support from the Ministry of Health and other stakeholders, but there is limited knowledge on the district health manager's capacity to carry out evidence-based planning. The aim of this study was to determine the barriers and enablers to evidence-based planning at the district level. This qualitative study collected data through key informant interviews with district managers from two purposefully selected districts in Uganda that have been implementing evidence-based planning. A deductive process of thematic analysis was used to classify responses within themes. There were considerable differences between the districts in regard to the barriers and enablers for evidence-based planning. Variations could be attributed to specific contextual and environmental differences such as human resource levels, date of establishment of the district, funding and the sociopolitical environment. The perceived lack of local decision space coupled with the perception that the politicians had all the power while having limited knowledge on evidence-based planning was considered an important barrier. There is a need to review the mandate of the district managers to make decisions in the planning process and the range of decision space available within the district health system. Given the important role elected officials play in a decentralized system a concerted effort should be made to increase their knowledge on evidence-based planning and the district health system as a whole.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 93 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 93 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 20 22%
Researcher 11 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 8%
Other 4 4%
Other 13 14%
Unknown 28 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 14 15%
Social Sciences 12 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 12 13%
Business, Management and Accounting 8 9%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 4 4%
Other 13 14%
Unknown 30 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 12 February 2017.
All research outputs
#7,007,229
of 22,952,268 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#3,433
of 7,684 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#133,164
of 420,286 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#61
of 147 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,952,268 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,684 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% 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 420,286 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 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 147 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.