↓ Skip to main content

A need to accelerate health research productivity in an African University: the case of Makerere University College of Health Sciences

Overview of attention for article published in Health Research Policy and Systems, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
4 X users

Readers on

mendeley
124 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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 need to accelerate health research productivity in an African University: the case of Makerere University College of Health Sciences
Published in
Health Research Policy and Systems, April 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12961-017-0196-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Damalie Nakanjako, Dickens Akena, Dan K. Kaye, James Tumwine, Elialilia Okello, Annettee Nakimuli, Andrew Kambugu, Hazel McCullough, Harriet Mayanja-Kizza, Moses R. Kamya, Nelson K. Sewankambo

Abstract

In the last decade, Makerere University College of Health Sciences (MakCHS) has taken strides in research and training to improve healthcare through collaborative training and research programs. However, there is limited data on the trends of MakCHS faculty contributions to research and on faculty growth to take leading roles in health research. This paper reviews MakCHS faculty research publications over 15.5 years and outlines possible strategies to enhance faculty research outputs. We used a mixed methods approach. A systematic review of research publications by faculty at MakCHS (PubMed and Google Scholar from January 1, 2000, to June 30, 2015) to quantify the number of research articles, areas researched, authorship contribution by MakCHS faculty, source of funding, as well as affiliated local and international collaborations. Graphs were used to shown trends in publications and leadership of authorship by faculty. Annual individual faculty research productivity was presented as publication per capita. Qualitative data on high priority needs to improve research outputs was collected through focus group discussions (FGDs) with faculty members, and analysed manually into emerging themes. Of 298 faculty at MakCHS at 2015, 89 (30%) were female and 229 (77%) were junior and mid-level faculty (senior lecturer and below). The PubMed and Google Scholar searches yielded 6927 published articles, of which 3399 (49%) full-text articles were downloaded for analysis, 426/3825 (11%) available as titles/abstracts only, and 598/4423 (14%) were excluded. Only 614 articles were published in 2014, giving a publication per capita of 2.1 for any authorship, and 0.3 for first and last authorship positions. MakCHS faculty increasingly contributed as first, second, third, and last authors. Up to 57% of research was in infectious diseases, followed by non-communicable diseases (20%) and non-communicable maternal child health (11%). Priority needs to improve research outputs, as expressed by faculty, were (1) an institutionally led faculty career development program, (2) skills building in research methods and scientific writing, (3) protected time for research related activities, (4) opportunities for collaborative research, and (5) use of individual development plans. Faculty research productivity was low and dominated by infectious diseases and non-communicable disease research. There is a need for structured institutional support to optimise faculty research outputs. Only with increased research productivity will MakCHS and other academic institutions be able to make a significant contribution in addressing national health challenges.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users 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 124 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 124 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 17 14%
Researcher 15 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 9%
Student > Master 10 8%
Librarian 9 7%
Other 23 19%
Unknown 39 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 29 23%
Social Sciences 11 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 9%
Computer Science 7 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 5 4%
Other 20 16%
Unknown 41 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 05 October 2022.
All research outputs
#6,228,057
of 23,917,011 outputs
Outputs from Health Research Policy and Systems
#723
of 1,256 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#95,539
of 312,558 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Research Policy and Systems
#15
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,917,011 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,256 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 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% 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 312,558 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.