↓ Skip to main content

A methodological framework for the improved use of routine health system data to evaluate national malaria control programs: evidence from Zambia

Overview of attention for article published in Population Health Metrics, November 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
33 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
106 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
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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 106 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 104 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 26 25%
Researcher 19 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 8%
Student > Postgraduate 6 6%
Other 21 20%
Unknown 10 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 30 28%
Social Sciences 18 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 8%
Computer Science 6 6%
Other 17 16%
Unknown 15 14%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 02 December 2014.
All research outputs
#16,603,678
of 21,321,365 outputs
Outputs from Population Health Metrics
#323
of 387 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#234,817
of 346,251 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Population Health Metrics
#21
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,321,365 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 387 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.2. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% 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 346,251 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.