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 |
Impact of a decision-support tool on decision making at the district level in Kenya
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Health Research Policy and Systems, September 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1478-4505-11-34 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Tara Nutley, Sarah McNabb, Shannon Salentine |
| Abstract |
In many countries, the responsibility for planning and delivery of health services is devolved to the subnational level. Health programs, however, often fall short of efficient use of data to inform decisions. As a result, programs are not as effective as they can be at meeting the health needs of the populations they serve. In Kenya, a decision-support tool, the District Health Profile (DHP) tool was developed to integrate data from health programs, primarily HIV, at the district level and to enable district health management teams to review and monitor program progress for specific health issues to make informed service delivery decisions. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Kenya | 1 | 13% |
| United States | 1 | 13% |
| Unknown | 6 | 75% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 8 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 151 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Kenya | 2 | 1% |
| Finland | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 146 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 33 | 22% |
| Researcher | 27 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 19 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 5% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 7 | 5% |
| Other | 24 | 16% |
| Unknown | 34 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 33 | 22% |
| Social Sciences | 22 | 15% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 16 | 11% |
| Computer Science | 11 | 7% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 10 | 7% |
| Other | 20 | 13% |
| Unknown | 39 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 September 2013.
All research outputs
#6,165,371
of 24,387,992 outputs
Outputs from Health Research Policy and Systems
#733
of 1,304 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#49,456
of 202,501 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Research Policy and Systems
#11
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,387,992 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,304 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 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% 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 202,501 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 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.