↓ Skip to main content

Public-on-private dual practice among physicians in public hospitals of Tigray National Regional State, North Ethiopia: perspectives of physicians, patients and managers

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
82 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
Public-on-private dual practice among physicians in public hospitals of Tigray National Regional State, North Ethiopia: perspectives of physicians, patients and managers
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, November 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12913-017-2701-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Goitom Gigar Abera, Yibeltal Kiflie Alemayehu, Jeph Herrin

Abstract

Physicians who work in the private sector while also holding a salaried job in a public hospital, known as "dual practice," is one of the main retention strategies adopted by the government of Ethiopia. Dual practice was legally endorsed in Tigray National Regional State, Ethiopia in 2010. Therefore, the aim of this study was to explore the extent of dual practice, reasons why physicians engage in it, and its effects on public hospital services in this state in northern Ethiopia. A cross-sectional study using mixed methods was conducted from February to March 2011 in six geographically representative public hospitals of Tigray National Regional State. A semi-structured, self-administered questionnaire was distributed to all physicians working in the study hospitals, and an interviewer-administered, structured questionnaire was used to collect data from admitted patients. Focus group discussions were conducted with hospital governing boards. Quantitative and qualitative data were used in the analysis. Data were collected from 31 physicians and 449 patients in the six study hospitals. Six focus group discussions were conducted. Twenty-eight (90.3%) of the physicians were engaged in dual practice to some extent: 16 (51.6%) owned private clinics outside the public hospital, 5 (16.1%) worked part-time in outside private clinics, and 7 (22.6%) worked in the private wing of public hospitals. Income supplementation was the primary reason for engaging in dual practice, as reported by 100% of the physicians. The positive effects of dual practice from both managers' and physicians' perspectives were physician retention in the public sector. Ninety-one patients (20.3%) had been referred from a private clinic immediately prior to their current admission-a circular diversion pattern. Eighteen (19.8%) of the diverted patients reported that health workers in the public hospitals diverted them. Circular diversion pattern of referral system is the key negative consequence of dual practice. Physicians and hospital managers agreed that health worker retention was the main positive consequence of dual practice upon the public sector, and banning dual practice would result in a major loss of senior physicians. The motive behind the circular diversion pattern described by patients should be studied further.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 82 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 82 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 18 22%
Researcher 9 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 6%
Student > Postgraduate 4 5%
Other 9 11%
Unknown 31 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 13%
Business, Management and Accounting 8 10%
Social Sciences 7 9%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 2%
Other 4 5%
Unknown 35 43%
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 30 August 2019.
All research outputs
#5,948,794
of 23,007,887 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#2,714
of 7,704 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#97,085
of 328,166 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#45
of 106 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,007,887 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 7,704 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% 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 328,166 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 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 106 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its contemporaries.