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 |
Studying complex interventions: reflections from the FEMHealth project on evaluating fee exemption policies in West Africa and Morocco
|
---|---|
Published in |
BMC Health Services Research, November 2013
|
DOI | 10.1186/1472-6963-13-469 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Bruno Marchal, Sara Van Belle, Vincent De Brouwere, Sophie Witter |
Abstract |
The importance of complexity in health care policy-making and interventions, as well as research and evaluation is now widely acknowledged, but conceptual confusion reigns and few applications of complexity concepts in research design have been published. Taking user fee exemption policies as an entry point, we explore the methodological consequences of 'complexity' for health policy research and evaluation. We first discuss the difference between simple, complicated and complex and introduce key concepts of complex adaptive systems theory. We then apply these to fee exemption policies. |
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 % |
---|---|---|
Senegal | 1 | 50% |
Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 106 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United Kingdom | 2 | 2% |
Portugal | 1 | <1% |
Uganda | 1 | <1% |
Australia | 1 | <1% |
Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
Canada | 1 | <1% |
Belgium | 1 | <1% |
Unknown | 98 | 92% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Master | 24 | 23% |
Researcher | 21 | 20% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 14 | 13% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 9 | 8% |
Other | 6 | 6% |
Other | 16 | 15% |
Unknown | 16 | 15% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 32 | 30% |
Social Sciences | 24 | 23% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 10 | 9% |
Business, Management and Accounting | 5 | 5% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 3% |
Other | 16 | 15% |
Unknown | 16 | 15% |
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 29 November 2013.
All research outputs
#14,766,517
of 22,731,677 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#5,346
of 7,606 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#127,894
of 215,945 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#101
of 145 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,731,677 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 7,606 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% 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 215,945 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 145 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.