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 |
Promoting universal financial protection: contracting faith-based health facilities to expand access – lessons learned from Malawi
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Health Research Policy and Systems, August 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1478-4505-11-27 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Maureen L Chirwa, Isabel Kazanga, Giulia Faedo, Stephen Thomas |
| Abstract |
Public-private collaborations are increasingly being utilized to universalize health care. In Malawi, the Ministry of Health contracts selected health facilities owned by the main faith-based provider, the Christian Health Association of Malawi (CHAM), to deliver care at no fee to the most vulnerable and underserved populations in the country through Service Level Agreements (SLAs). This study examined the features of SLAs and their effectiveness in expanding universal coverage. The study involved a policy analysis focusing on key stakeholders around SLAs as well as a case study approach to analyse how design and implementation of SLAs affect efficiency, equity and sustainability of services delivered by SLAs. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 192 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Malawi | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 191 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 45 | 23% |
| Researcher | 28 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 27 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 15 | 8% |
| Other | 10 | 5% |
| Other | 26 | 14% |
| Unknown | 41 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 44 | 23% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 26 | 14% |
| Social Sciences | 26 | 14% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 12 | 6% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 10 | 5% |
| Other | 24 | 13% |
| Unknown | 50 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 25 December 2013.
All research outputs
#14,757,547
of 22,716,996 outputs
Outputs from Health Research Policy and Systems
#1,044
of 1,206 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#117,933
of 198,412 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Research Policy and Systems
#14
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,716,996 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,206 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 10th percentile – i.e., 10% 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 198,412 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.