↓ Skip to main content

A systematic tale of two differing reviews: evaluating the evidence on public and private sector quality of primary care in low and middle income countries

Overview of attention for article published in Globalization and Health, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#34 of 980)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
policy
1 policy source
twitter
106 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
68 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
A systematic tale of two differing reviews: evaluating the evidence on public and private sector quality of primary care in low and middle income countries
Published in
Globalization and Health, April 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12992-017-0246-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jorge Coarasa, Jishnu Das, Elizabeth Gummerson, Asaf Bitton

Abstract

Systematic reviews are powerful tools for summarizing vast amounts of data in controversial areas; but their utility is limited by methodological choices and assumptions. Two systematic reviews of literature on the quality of private sector primary care in low and middle income countries (LMIC), published in the same journal within a year, reached conflicting conclusions. The difference in findings reflects different review methodologies, but more importantly, a weak underlying body of literature. A detailed examination of the literature cited in both reviews shows that only one of the underlying studies met the gold standard for methodological robustness. Given the current policy momentum on universal health coverage and primary health care reform across the globe, there is an urgent need for high quality empirical evidence on the quality of private versus public sector primary health care in LMIC.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 106 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 68 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
South Africa 1 1%
Unknown 67 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 17 25%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 19%
Student > Master 8 12%
Other 6 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 4%
Other 11 16%
Unknown 10 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 26%
Social Sciences 11 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 12%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 6%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 4%
Other 11 16%
Unknown 13 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 79. 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 01 January 2021.
All research outputs
#365,399
of 19,372,190 outputs
Outputs from Globalization and Health
#34
of 980 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,970
of 278,838 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Globalization and Health
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,372,190 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 980 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 278,838 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them