↓ Skip to main content

Postings and transfers in the Ghanaian health system: a study of health workforce governance

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal for Equity in Health, September 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

twitter
8 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
132 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
Postings and transfers in the Ghanaian health system: a study of health workforce governance
Published in
International Journal for Equity in Health, September 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12939-017-0583-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Aku Kwamie, Miriam Asiamah, Marta Schaaf, Irene Akua Agyepong

Abstract

Decision-making on postings and transfers - that is, the geographic deployment of the health workforce - is a key element of health workforce governance. When poorly managed, postings and transfers result in maldistribution, absenteeism, and low morale. At stake is managing the balance between organisational (i.e., health system) and individual (i.e., staff preference) needs. The negotiation of this potential convergence or divergence of interests provides a window on practices of postings and transfers, and on the micro-practices of governance in health systems more generally. This article explores the policies and processes, and the interplay between formal and informal rules and norms which underpin postings and transfers practice in two rural districts in the Greater Accra Region of Ghana. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with eight district managers and 87 frontline staff from the district health administration, district hospital, polyclinic, health centres and community outreach compounds across two districts. Interviews sought to understand how the postings and transfers process works in practice, factors in frontline staff and district manager decision-making, personal experiences in being posted, and study leave as a common strategy for obtaining transfers. Differential negotiation-spaces at regional and district level exist and inform postings and transfers in practice. This is in contrast to the formal cascaded rules set to govern decision-making authority for postings and transfers. Many frontline staff lack policy clarity of postings and transfers processes and thus 'test' the system through informal staff lobbying, compounding staff perception of the postings and transfers process as being unfair. District managers are also challenged with limited decision-space embedded in broader policy contexts of systemic hierarchy and resource dependence. This underscores the negotiation process as ongoing, rather than static. These findings point to tensions between individual and organisational goals. This article contributes to a burgeoning literature on postings and transfers as a distinct dynamic which bridges the interactions between health systems governance and health workforce development. Importantly, this article helps to expand the notion of health systems governance beyond 'good' governance towards understanding governance as a process of negotiation.

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 132 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 132 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 26 20%
Student > Postgraduate 12 9%
Researcher 10 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 8%
Other 6 5%
Other 25 19%
Unknown 43 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 24 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 21 16%
Social Sciences 13 10%
Engineering 7 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 6 5%
Other 12 9%
Unknown 49 37%
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 29 September 2017.
All research outputs
#6,032,587
of 23,002,898 outputs
Outputs from International Journal for Equity in Health
#941
of 1,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#94,934
of 316,186 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal for Equity in Health
#32
of 57 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,002,898 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 1,923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% 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 316,186 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 57 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.