↓ Skip to main content

Cost-effectiveness and affordability of community mobilisation through women’s groups and quality improvement in health facilities (MaiKhanda trial) in Malawi

Overview of attention for article published in Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation, January 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#2 of 117)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
6 tweeters
facebook
4 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
93 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
Cost-effectiveness and affordability of community mobilisation through women’s groups and quality improvement in health facilities (MaiKhanda trial) in Malawi
Published in
Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation, January 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12962-014-0028-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tim Colbourn, Anni-Maria Pulkki-Brännström, Bejoy Nambiar, Sungwook Kim, Austin Bondo, Lumbani Banda, Charles Makwenda, Neha Batura, Hassan Haghparast-Bidgoli, Rachael Hunter, Anthony Costello, Gianluca Baio, Jolene Skordis-Worrall

Abstract

Understanding the cost-effectiveness and affordability of interventions to reduce maternal and newborn deaths is critical to persuading policymakers and donors to implement at scale. The effectiveness of community mobilisation through women's groups and health facility quality improvement, both aiming to reduce maternal and neonatal mortality, was assessed by a cluster randomised controlled trial conducted in rural Malawi in 2008-2010. In this paper, we calculate intervention cost-effectiveness and model the affordability of the interventions at scale.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 93 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 1%
Belgium 1 1%
Unknown 91 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 18 19%
Researcher 16 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 14%
Student > Bachelor 9 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 9%
Other 14 15%
Unknown 15 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 26 28%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 17%
Social Sciences 13 14%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 6 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 3%
Other 9 10%
Unknown 20 22%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 January 2015.
All research outputs
#323,866
of 5,036,026 outputs
Outputs from Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation
#2
of 117 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,708
of 177,276 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation
#1
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 5,036,026 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 117 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 177,276 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 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