↓ Skip to main content

Identifying factors for job motivation of rural health workers in North Viet Nam

Overview of attention for article published in Human Resources for Health, November 2003
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (58th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source

Citations

dimensions_citation
272 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
393 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
Identifying factors for job motivation of rural health workers in North Viet Nam
Published in
Human Resources for Health, November 2003
DOI 10.1186/1478-4491-1-10
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marjolein Dieleman, Pham Viet Cuong, Le Vu Anh, Tim Martineau

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In Viet Nam, most of the public health staff (84%) currently works in rural areas, where 80% of the people live. To provide good quality health care services, it is important to develop strategies influencing staff motivation for better performance. METHOD: An exploratory qualitative research was carried out among health workers in two provinces in North Viet Nam so as to identify entry points for developing strategies that improve staff performance in rural areas. The study aimed to determine the major motivating factors and it is the first in Viet Nam that looks at health workers' job perception and motivation. Apart from health workers, managers at national and at provincial level were interviewed as well as some community representatives. RESULTS: The study showed that motivation is influenced by both financial and non-financial incentives. The main motivating factors for health workers were appreciation by managers, colleagues and the community, a stable job and income and training. The main discouraging factors were related to low salaries and difficult working conditions. CONCLUSION: Activities associated with appreciation such as performance management are currently not optimally implemented, as health workers perceive supervision as control, selection for training as unclear and unequal, and performance appraisal as not useful. The kind of non-financial incentives identified should be taken into consideration when developing HRM strategies. Areas for further studies are identified.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 393 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Portugal 2 <1%
Uganda 2 <1%
Indonesia 2 <1%
Bangladesh 1 <1%
Malaysia 1 <1%
Vietnam 1 <1%
Mali 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Other 3 <1%
Unknown 378 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 100 25%
Student > Bachelor 46 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 34 9%
Researcher 33 8%
Lecturer 31 8%
Other 82 21%
Unknown 67 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 103 26%
Social Sciences 60 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 55 14%
Business, Management and Accounting 37 9%
Psychology 14 4%
Other 42 11%
Unknown 82 21%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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
#6,442,451
of 19,862,278 outputs
Outputs from Human Resources for Health
#696
of 1,038 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#64,082
of 200,131 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Human Resources for Health
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,862,278 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,038 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.2. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% 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 200,131 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 58% 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