↓ Skip to main content

Rwanda’s evolving community health worker system: a qualitative assessment of client and provider perspectives

Overview of attention for article published in Human Resources for Health, December 2014
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 (#45 of 1,261)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
5 news outlets
policy
2 policy sources
twitter
18 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
108 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
455 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
Rwanda’s evolving community health worker system: a qualitative assessment of client and provider perspectives
Published in
Human Resources for Health, December 2014
DOI 10.1186/1478-4491-12-71
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jeanine Condo, Catherine Mugeni, Brienna Naughton, Kathleen Hall, Maria Antonia Tuazon, Abiud Omwega, Friday Nwaigwe, Peter Drobac, Ziauddin Hyder, Fidele Ngabo, Agnes Binagwaho

Abstract

Community health workers (CHWs) can play important roles in primary health care delivery, particularly in settings of health workforce shortages. However, little is known about CHWs' perceptions of barriers and motivations, as well as those of the beneficiaries of CHWs. In Rwanda, which faces a significant gap in human resources for health, the Ministry of Health expanded its community health programme beginning in 2007, eventually placing 4 trained CHWs in every village in the country by 2009. The aim of this study was to assess the capacity of CHWs and the factors affecting the efficiency and effectiveness of the CHW programme, as perceived by the CHWs and their beneficiaries.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 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 455 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
South Africa 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Sierra Leone 1 <1%
Romania 1 <1%
Rwanda 1 <1%
Congo, The Democratic Republic of the 1 <1%
Unknown 449 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 103 23%
Researcher 65 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 47 10%
Student > Bachelor 46 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 24 5%
Other 84 18%
Unknown 86 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 132 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 72 16%
Social Sciences 61 13%
Business, Management and Accounting 14 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 2%
Other 68 15%
Unknown 98 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 53. 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 25 January 2024.
All research outputs
#791,994
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Human Resources for Health
#45
of 1,261 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,851
of 360,986 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Human Resources for Health
#1
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th 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 360,986 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 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 94% of its contemporaries.