↓ Skip to main content

Human resources for maternal health: multi-purpose or specialists?

Overview of attention for article published in Human Resources for Health, September 2008
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
50 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
170 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
Human resources for maternal health: multi-purpose or specialists?
Published in
Human Resources for Health, September 2008
DOI 10.1186/1478-4491-6-21
Pubmed ID
Authors

Vincent Fauveau, Della R Sherratt, Luc de Bernis

Abstract

A crucial question in the aim to attain MDG5 is whether it can be achieved faster with the scaling up of multi-purpose health workers operating in the community or with the scaling up of professional skilled birth attendants working in health facilities. Most advisers concerned with maternal mortality reduction concur to promote births in facilities with professional attendants as the ultimate strategy. The evidence, however, is scarce on what it takes to progress in this path, and on the 'interim solutions' for situations where the majority of women still deliver at home. These questions are particularly relevant as we have reached the twentieth anniversary of the safe motherhood initiative without much progress made. In this paper we review the current situation of human resources for maternal health as well as the problems that they face. We propose seven key areas of work that must be addressed when planning for scaling up human resources for maternal health in light of MDG5, and finally we indicate some advances recently made in selected countries and the lessons learned from these experiences. Whilst the focus of this paper is on maternal health, it is acknowledged that the interventions to reduce maternal mortality will also contribute to significantly reducing newborn mortality. Addressing each of the seven key areas of work--recommended by the first International Forum on 'Midwifery in the Community', Tunis, December 2006--is essential for the success of any MDG5 programme. We hypothesize that a great deal of the stagnation of maternal health programmes has been the result of confusion and careless choices in scaling up between a limited number of truly skilled birth attendants and large quantities of multi-purpose workers with short training, fewer skills, limited authority and no career pathways. We conclude from the lessons learnt that no significant progress in maternal mortality reduction can be achieved without a strong political decision to empower midwives and others with midwifery skills, and a substantial strengthening of health systems with a focus on quality of care rather than on numbers, to give them the means to respond to the challenge.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 170 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
South Africa 2 1%
United States 2 1%
Tanzania, United Republic of 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Indonesia 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Thailand 1 <1%
Unknown 161 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 43 25%
Researcher 30 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 8%
Other 10 6%
Student > Bachelor 8 5%
Other 38 22%
Unknown 28 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 51 30%
Social Sciences 24 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 22 13%
Business, Management and Accounting 9 5%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 7 4%
Other 24 14%
Unknown 33 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 17 September 2016.
All research outputs
#16,721,208
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Human Resources for Health
#1,125
of 1,261 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#86,270
of 101,156 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Human Resources for Health
#6
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,261 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.3. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% 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 101,156 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.