↓ Skip to main content

Protocol for the evaluation of a pay for performance programme in Pwani region in Tanzania: A controlled before and after study

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, July 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
155 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
Protocol for the evaluation of a pay for performance programme in Pwani region in Tanzania: A controlled before and after study
Published in
Implementation Science, July 2013
DOI 10.1186/1748-5908-8-80
Pubmed ID
Authors

Josephine Borghi, Iddy Mayumana, Irene Mashasi, Peter Binyaruka, Edith Patouillard, Ikunda Njau, Ottar Maestad, Salim Abdulla, Masuma Mamdani

Abstract

The use of supply-side incentives to increase health service utilisation and enhance service quality is gaining momentum in many low- and middle-income countries. However, there is a paucity of evidence on the impact of such schemes, their cost-effectiveness, and the process of implementation and potential unintended consequences in these settings. A pay for performance (P4P) programme was introduced in Pwani region of Tanzania in 2011.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 155 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Tanzania, United Republic of 3 2%
United Kingdom 2 1%
Ethiopia 1 <1%
Ghana 1 <1%
Peru 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Qatar 1 <1%
Unknown 145 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 39 25%
Student > Master 29 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 13%
Student > Bachelor 10 6%
Student > Postgraduate 9 6%
Other 27 17%
Unknown 21 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 40 26%
Social Sciences 24 15%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 16 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 5%
Other 23 15%
Unknown 30 19%

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 30 July 2013.
All research outputs
#2,263,994
of 6,574,878 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#635
of 934 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,195
of 103,102 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#25
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 6,574,878 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 64th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 934 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.0. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% 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 103,102 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 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 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.