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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
A methodological framework for the improved use of routine health system data to evaluate national malaria control programs: evidence from Zambia
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Population Health Metrics, November 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12963-014-0030-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Adam Bennett, Joshua Yukich, John M Miller, Penelope Vounatsou, Busiku Hamainza, Mercy M Ingwe, Hawela B Moonga, Mulakwo Kamuliwo, Joseph Keating, Thomas A Smith, Richard W Steketee, Thomas P Eisele |
| Abstract |
Due to challenges in laboratory confirmation, reporting completeness, timeliness, and health access, routine incidence data from health management information systems (HMIS) have rarely been used for the rigorous evaluation of malaria control program scale-up in Africa. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 125 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 123 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 29 | 23% |
| Researcher | 19 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 18 | 14% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 10 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 5% |
| Other | 23 | 18% |
| Unknown | 20 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 33 | 26% |
| Social Sciences | 19 | 15% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 13 | 10% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 8 | 6% |
| Computer Science | 7 | 6% |
| Other | 20 | 16% |
| Unknown | 25 | 20% |
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 10 November 2022.
All research outputs
#7,716,656
of 25,271,884 outputs
Outputs from Population Health Metrics
#205
of 410 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#100,166
of 375,154 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Population Health Metrics
#1
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,271,884 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 410 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.7. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% 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 375,154 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 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them