↓ Skip to main content

“We and the nurses are now working with one voice”: How community leaders and health committee members describe their role in Sierra Leone’s Ebola response

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
33 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
180 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
“We and the nurses are now working with one voice”: How community leaders and health committee members describe their role in Sierra Leone’s Ebola response
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, July 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12913-017-2414-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shannon A. McMahon, Lara S. Ho, Kerry Scott, Hannah Brown, Laura Miller, Ruwan Ratnayake, Rashid Ansumana

Abstract

Across low-income settings, community volunteers and health committee members support the formal health system - both routinely and amid emergencies - by engaging in health services such as referrals and health education. During the 2014-2015 Ebola epidemic, emerging reports suggest that community engagement was instrumental in interrupting transmission. Nevertheless, literature regarding community volunteers' roles during emergencies generally, and Ebola specifically, is scarce. This research outlines what this cadre of the workforce did, how they coped, and the facilitators and barriers they faced to providing care in Sierra Leone. Thirteen focus group discussions (FGD) were conducted with community members (including members of Health Management Committees (HMC)) near the height of the Ebola epidemic in two districts of Sierra Leone: Bo and Kenema. Conducted in either Krio or Mende, each FGD lasted an average of two hours and was led by a trained moderator who was accompanied by a note taker. All FGDs were audio recorded, transcribed, and translated into English by the data collection team. Analysis followed a modified framework approach, which entailed coding (both inductive and deductive), arrangement of codes into themes, and drafting, distribution and discussion of analytic summaries across the study team. Community volunteers and HMC members described engaging in labor-related tasks (e.g. building isolation structures, digging graves) and administrative/community-outreach tasks (e.g. screening, contact tracing, and encouraging care seeking within facilities). Through their dual orientation as community members and as individuals linked to the health system, respondents described building community trust and support for Ebola prevention and treatment, while also enabling formal health workers to better understand and address people's fears and needs. Community volunteers' main concerns included inadequate communication with - and a sense of being forgotten by - the health system, negative perceptions of their role within their communities, and concerns regarding the amount and nature of their compensation. Respondents described commitment to supporting their health system and their communities during the Ebola crisis. The health system could more effectively harness the potential of local responders by recognizing community strengths and weaknesses, as well as community volunteers' motivations and limitations. Clarifying the roles, responsibilities, and remuneration of health volunteers to the recipients themselves, facility-based staff, and the wider community will enable organizations that partner with health committees to bolster trust, manage expectations, and reinforce collaboration.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 180 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 180 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 34 19%
Researcher 26 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 25 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 15 8%
Student > Bachelor 14 8%
Other 21 12%
Unknown 45 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 35 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 28 16%
Social Sciences 27 15%
Business, Management and Accounting 10 6%
Psychology 8 4%
Other 26 14%
Unknown 46 26%
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 22 December 2021.
All research outputs
#6,927,268
of 25,225,928 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#3,289
of 8,564 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#100,749
of 320,675 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#77
of 166 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,225,928 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,564 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% 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 320,675 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 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 166 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.