↓ Skip to main content

Street-level workers’ inadequate knowledge and application of exemption policies in Burkina Faso jeopardize the achievement of universal health coverage: evidence from a cross-sectional survey

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal for Equity in Health, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
2 policy sources
twitter
12 X users

Readers on

mendeley
138 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
Street-level workers’ inadequate knowledge and application of exemption policies in Burkina Faso jeopardize the achievement of universal health coverage: evidence from a cross-sectional survey
Published in
International Journal for Equity in Health, January 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12939-017-0717-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Valéry Ridde, Gerald Leppert, Hervé Hien, Paul Jacob Robyn, Manuela De Allegri

Abstract

Street-level workers play a key role in public health policies in Africa, as they are often the ones to ensure their implementation. In Burkina Faso, the State formulated two different user-fee exemption policies for indigents, one for deliveries (2007), and one for primary healthcare (2009). The objective of this study was to measure and understand the determinants of street-level workers' knowledge and application of these exemption measures. We used cross-sectional data collected between October 2013 and March 2014. The survey targeted 1521 health workers distributed in 498 first-line centres, 18 district hospitals, 5 regional hospitals, and 11 private or other facilities across 24 districts. We used four different random effects models to identify factors associated with knowledge and application of each of the above-mentioned exemption policies. Only 9.2% of workers surveyed knew of the directive exempting the worst-off, and only 5% implemented it. Knowledge and application of the delivery exemption were higher, with 27% of all health workers being aware of the delivery exemption directive and 24.2% applying it. Mobile health workers were found to be consistently more likely to apply both exemptions. Health workers who were facility heads were significantly more likely to know about the indigent exemption for primary health care and to apply it. Health workers in districts with higher proportions of very poor people were significantly more likely to know about and apply the delivery exemption. Nearly 60% of respondents indicated either 5% or 10% as the percentage of people they would deem adequate to target for exemption. This quantitative study confirmed earlier qualitative results on the importance of training and informing health workers and monitoring the measures targeting equity, to ensure compliance with government directives. The local context (e.g., hierarchy, health system, interventions) and the ideas that street-level workers have about the policy instruments can influence their effective implementation. Methods for remunerating health workers and health centres also need to be adapted to ensure equity measures are applied to achieve universal healthcare.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 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 138 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 138 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 31 22%
Student > Bachelor 14 10%
Researcher 12 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 7%
Student > Postgraduate 8 6%
Other 28 20%
Unknown 35 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 26 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 24 17%
Social Sciences 15 11%
Computer Science 6 4%
Unspecified 6 4%
Other 23 17%
Unknown 38 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 11 November 2020.
All research outputs
#2,549,251
of 25,299,129 outputs
Outputs from International Journal for Equity in Health
#431
of 2,202 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#56,142
of 455,990 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal for Equity in Health
#11
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,299,129 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,202 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 455,990 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.