↓ Skip to main content

Bridging the human resource gap in surgical and anesthesia care in low-resource countries: a review of the task sharing literature

Overview of attention for article published in Human Resources for Health, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
2 policy sources
twitter
21 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
60 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
154 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
Bridging the human resource gap in surgical and anesthesia care in low-resource countries: a review of the task sharing literature
Published in
Human Resources for Health, November 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12960-017-0248-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tigistu Ashengo, Alena Skeels, Elizabeth J. H. Hurwitz, Eric Thuo, Harshad Sanghvi

Abstract

Task sharing, the involvement of non-specialists (non-physician clinicians or non-specialist physicians) in performing tasks originally reserved for surgeons and anesthesiologists, can be a potent strategy in bridging the vast human resource gap in surgery and anesthesia and bringing needed surgical care to the district level especially in low-resource countries. Although a common practice, the idea of assigning advanced tasks to less-specialized workers remains a subject of controversy. In order to optimize its benefits, it is helpful to understand the current task sharing landscape, its challenges, and its promise. We performed a literature review of PubMed, EMBASE, and gray literature sources for articles published between January 1, 1996, and August 1, 2016, written in English, with a focus on task sharing in surgery or anesthesia in low-resource countries. Gray literature sources are defined as articles produced outside of a peer-reviewed journal. We sought data on the nature and forms of task sharing (non-specialist cadres involved, surgical/anesthesia procedures shared, approaches to training and supervision, and regulatory and other efforts to create a supportive environment), impact of task sharing on delivery of surgical services (effect on access, acceptability, cost, safety, and quality), and challenges to successful implementation. We identified 40 published articles describing task sharing in surgery and anesthesia in 39 low-resource countries in Africa and Asia. All countries had a cadre of non-specialists providing anesthesia services, while 13 had cadres providing surgical services. Six countries had non-specialists performing major procedures, including Cesarean sections and open abdominal surgeries. While most cadres were recognized by their governments as service providers, very few had scopes of practice that included task sharing of surgery or anesthesia. Key challenges to effective task sharing include specialists' concern about safety, weak training strategies, poor or unclear career pathways, regulatory constraints, and service underutilization. Concrete recommendations are offered.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 21 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 154 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 154 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 24 16%
Researcher 21 14%
Student > Bachelor 16 10%
Other 10 6%
Student > Postgraduate 8 5%
Other 29 19%
Unknown 46 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 56 36%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 8%
Social Sciences 7 5%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 4 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 2%
Other 16 10%
Unknown 55 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. 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 November 2020.
All research outputs
#1,800,545
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Human Resources for Health
#167
of 1,261 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#35,889
of 342,928 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Human Resources for Health
#4
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
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 has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 342,928 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.