↓ Skip to main content

The implication of the shortage of health workforce specialist on universal health coverage in Kenya

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#40 of 1,261)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
7 news outlets
policy
1 policy source
twitter
10 X users

Readers on

mendeley
388 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
The implication of the shortage of health workforce specialist on universal health coverage in Kenya
Published in
Human Resources for Health, December 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12960-017-0253-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mumbo Hazel Miseda, Samuel Odhiambo Were, Cirindi Anne Murianki, Milo Peter Mutuku, Stephen N. Mutwiwa

Abstract

Globally, there is an acute shortage of human resources for health (HRH), and the greatest burden is borne by low-income countries especially in sub-Saharan Africa and some parts of Asia. This shortage has not only considerably constrained the achievement of health-related development goals but also impeded accelerated progress towards universal health coverage (UHC). Like any other low-income country, Kenya is experiencing health workforce shortage particularly in specialized healthcare workers to cater for the rapidly growing need for specialized health care (MOH Training Needs Assessment report (2015)). Efficient use of the existing health workforce including task shifting is under consideration as a short-term stop gap measure while deliberate efforts are being put on retention policies and increased production of HRH. The Ministry of Health (MOH) with support from the United States Agency for International Development-funded FUNZOKenya project and MOH/Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) project conducted a country-wide training needs assessment (TNA) to identify skill gaps in the provision of specialized health care in private and public hospitals in 46 out of Kenya's 47 counties between April and June 2015. A total of 99 respondents participated in the TNA. Structured questionnaires were used to undertake this assessment. The assessment sought to determine the extent of skill gaps on the basis of the national guidelines and as perceived by the County Directors of Health (CDH). The questionnaires were posted to and received by all the respondents a week prior to a face-to-face interview with the respondents for familiarization. Data analysis was done using SPSS statistical package. Overall, the findings revealed average skill gaps on selected specialists (healthcare professional whose practice is limited to a particular area, such as a branch of medicine, surgery, or nursing, especially, one who by virtue of advanced training is certified by a specialty board as being qualified to so limit his or her practice, Free dictionary) at 85 and 62% when compared to the guideline and as perceived by the CDH respectively. It also revealed that gynecologists exceeded the requirements by 88 and 246% against the guidelines and as perceived by the CDH respectively. There is an overall huge gap in health specialists across the 46 counties, and the focus of training should be on the following specialists: cardio-surgeons, neurosurgeons, oncologists, nephrologists, lung and skin clinical officers, anesthetic clinical officers, cardiology nurses, forensic nurses, dental nurses, accident and emergency nurses, and oncology nurses. More innovative approaches, including the use of technology, need to be considered to address this challenge in the immediate, medium, and long terms. Policies and legal frameworks should be developed to facilitate cross-county sharing of specialist expertise. Efforts need to be made to ensure harmonized skill gaps revealed by the guideline and as perceived by the CDHs to inform the development of mitigation strategies.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 388 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 388 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 91 23%
Researcher 39 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 33 9%
Student > Bachelor 24 6%
Student > Postgraduate 22 6%
Other 71 18%
Unknown 108 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 80 21%
Medicine and Dentistry 59 15%
Social Sciences 27 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 16 4%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 12 3%
Other 78 20%
Unknown 116 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 58. 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 26 October 2022.
All research outputs
#733,353
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Human Resources for Health
#40
of 1,261 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,521
of 444,941 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Human Resources for Health
#2
of 22 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 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% 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 particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 444,941 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.