↓ Skip to main content

Perceptions of community-based field workers on the effect of a longitudinal biomedical research project on their sustainable livelihoods

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
97 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
Perceptions of community-based field workers on the effect of a longitudinal biomedical research project on their sustainable livelihoods
Published in
BMC Public Health, March 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12889-017-4138-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christabelle S. Moyo, Joseph Francis, Pascal O. Bessong

Abstract

Researchers involved in biomedical community-based projects rarely seek the perspectives of community fieldworkers, who are the 'foot soldiers' in such projects. Understanding the effect of biomedical research on community-based field workers could identify benefits and shortfalls that may be crucial to the success of community-based studies. The present study explored the perceptions of community-based field workers on the effect of the Etiology, Risk Factors and Interactions of Enteric Infections and Malnutrition and the Consequences for Child Health and Development Project" (MAL-ED) South Africa on their tangible and intangible capital which together comprise sustainable livelihoods. The study was conducted in Dzimauli community in Limpopo Province of South Africa between January-February 2016. The sustainable livelihoods framework was used to query community-based field workers' perspectives of both tangible assets such as income and physical assets and intangible assets such as social capital, confidence, and skills. Data were collected through twenty one individual in-depth interviews and one focus group discussion. Data were analysed using the Thematic Content Analysis approach supported by ATLAS.ti, version 7.5.10 software. All the field workers indicated that they benefitted from the MAL-ED South Africa project. The benefits included intangible assets such as acquisition of knowledge and skills, stronger social capital and personal development. Additionally, all indicated that MAL-ED South Africa provided them with the tangible assets of increased income and physical assets. Observations obtained from the focus group discussion and the community-based leaders concurred with the findings from the in-depth interviews. Additionally, some field workers expressed the desire for training in public relations, communication, problem solving and confidence building. The MAL-ED South Africa, biomedical research project, had positive effects on tangible and intangible assets that compose the sustainable livelihoods of community-based fieldworkers. However, the field workers expressed the need to acquire social skills to enable them carry out their duties more efficiently.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 97 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 97 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 11 11%
Student > Master 10 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 10%
Researcher 9 9%
Student > Bachelor 8 8%
Other 18 19%
Unknown 31 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 16 16%
Social Sciences 14 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 6%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 5 5%
Engineering 5 5%
Other 18 19%
Unknown 33 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 17 March 2017.
All research outputs
#21,264,673
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#14,502
of 15,466 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#294,935
of 336,189 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#168
of 174 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 15,466 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.3. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 336,189 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 174 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.