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 |
Why are pro-poor exemption policies in Tanzania better implemented in some districts than in others?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal for Equity in Health, September 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1475-9276-12-80 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Stephen O Maluka |
| Abstract |
Like other African countries, Tanzania has in recent years, been implementing various exemptions and targeting programmes to protect and ensure equitable access to health care by poorer segments of the population. A body of evidence indicates that exemption policies, while potentially effective in principle, are ineffective in implementation. However, there is evidence that some districts, despite the challenges, perform better than others in terms of identifying the poor and allocating funds for the poor and vulnerable groups. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 152 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| India | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Tanzania, United Republic of | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 149 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 39 | 26% |
| Researcher | 20 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 15 | 10% |
| Lecturer | 9 | 6% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 8 | 5% |
| Other | 28 | 18% |
| Unknown | 33 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 39 | 26% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 31 | 20% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 15 | 10% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 9 | 6% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 7 | 5% |
| Other | 14 | 9% |
| Unknown | 37 | 24% |
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 29 October 2013.
All research outputs
#20,656,161
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from International Journal for Equity in Health
#1,960
of 2,222 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#162,403
of 215,408 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal for Equity in Health
#20
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,222 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.4. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% 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 215,408 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.