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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Analysis of the policymaking process in Burkina Faso’s health sector: case studies of the creation of two health system support units
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Health Research Policy and Systems, February 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12961-017-0173-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Andre Zida, John N. Lavis, Nelson K. Sewankambo, Bocar Kouyate, Kaelan Moat, Jessica Shearer |
| Abstract |
Burkina Faso has made a number of health system policy decisions to improve performance on health indicators and strengthen responsiveness to health-related challenges. These included the creation of a General Directorate of Health Information and Statistics (DGISS) and a technical unit to coordinate performance-based financing (CT-FBR). We analysed the policymaking processes associated with the establishment of these units, and documented the factors that influenced this process. We used a multiple-case study design based on Kingdon's agenda-setting model to investigate the DGISS and CT-FBR policymaking processes. Data were collected from interviews with key informants (n = 28), published literature, policy documents (including two strategic and 230 action plans), and 55 legal/regulatory texts. Interviews were analysed using thematic qualitative analysis. Data from the documentary analysis were triangulated with the qualitative interview data. Key factors influencing the policymaking processes associated with the two units involved the 'problem' (problem identification), 'policy' (formation of policy proposals), and 'politics' (political climate/change) streams, which came together in a way that resulted in proposals being placed on the decision agenda. A number of problems with Burkina Faso's health information and financing systems were identified. Policy proposals for the DGISS and CT-FBR units were developed in response to these problems, emerging from several sources including development partners. Changes in political and public service administrations (specifically the 2008 appointment of a new Minister of Health and the establishment of a new budget allocation system), with corresponding changes in the actors and interests involved, appeared key in elevating the proposals to the decision agenda. Efforts to improve performance on health indicators and strengthen responsiveness to health-related challenges need focus on the need for a compelling problem, a viable policy, and conducive politics in order to make it to the decision agenda. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 27% |
| Canada | 1 | 9% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 9% |
| Senegal | 1 | 9% |
| Unknown | 5 | 45% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 9 | 82% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 9% |
| Scientists | 1 | 9% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 91 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 91 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 20 | 22% |
| Researcher | 14 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 5% |
| Other | 8 | 9% |
| Unknown | 23 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 19 | 21% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 15% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 8 | 9% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 7 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 15 | 16% |
| Unknown | 25 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 28 February 2017.
All research outputs
#4,614,654
of 23,314,015 outputs
Outputs from Health Research Policy and Systems
#613
of 1,232 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#97,474
of 428,532 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Research Policy and Systems
#17
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,314,015 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% 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 428,532 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.