↓ Skip to main content

Exploring how different modes of governance act across health system levels to influence primary healthcare facility managers’ use of information in decision-making: experience from Cape Town, South…

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 (65th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
137 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
Exploring how different modes of governance act across health system levels to influence primary healthcare facility managers’ use of information in decision-making: experience from Cape Town, South Africa
Published in
International Journal for Equity in Health, September 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12939-017-0660-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Vera Scott, Lucy Gilson

Abstract

Governance, which includes decision-making at all levels of the health system, and information have been identified as key, interacting levers of health system strengthening. However there is an extensive literature detailing the challenges of supporting health managers to use formal information from health information systems (HISs) in their decision-making. While health information needs differ across levels of the health system there has been surprisingly little empirical work considering what information is actually used by primary healthcare facility managers in managing, and making decisions about, service delivery. This paper, therefore, specifically examines experience from Cape Town, South Africa, asking the question: How is primary healthcare facility managers' use of information for decision-making influenced by governance across levels of the health system? The research is novel in that it both explores what information these facility managers actually use in decision-making, and considers how wider governance processes influence this information use. An academic researcher and four facility managers worked as co-researchers in a multi-case study in which three areas of management were served as the cases. There were iterative cycles of data collection and collaborative analysis with individual and peer reflective learning over a period of three years. Central governance shaped what information and knowledge was valued - and, therefore, generated and used at lower system levels. The central level valued formal health information generated in the district-based HIS which therefore attracted management attention across the levels of the health system in terms of design, funding and implementation. This information was useful in the top-down practices of planning and management of the public health system. However, in facilities at the frontline of service delivery, there was a strong requirement for local, disaggregated information and experiential knowledge to make locally-appropriate and responsive decisions, and to perform the people management tasks required. Despite central level influences, modes of governance operating at the subdistrict level had influence over what information was valued, generated and used locally. Strengthening local level managers' ability to create enabling environments is an important leverage point in supporting informed local decision-making, and, in turn, translating national policies and priorities, including equity goals, into appropriate service delivery practices.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 137 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 137 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 33 24%
Researcher 20 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 6%
Student > Postgraduate 7 5%
Other 26 19%
Unknown 34 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 25 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 21 15%
Social Sciences 20 15%
Business, Management and Accounting 7 5%
Computer Science 4 3%
Other 24 18%
Unknown 36 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 April 2018.
All research outputs
#6,864,729
of 23,002,898 outputs
Outputs from International Journal for Equity in Health
#1,057
of 1,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#108,099
of 316,186 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal for Equity in Health
#38
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 69th 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 is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% 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 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 65% 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 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.