↓ Skip to main content

The gas cylinder, the motorcycle and the village health team member: a proof-of-concept study for the use of the Microsystems Quality Improvement Approach to strengthen the routine immunization…

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, March 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
158 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 gas cylinder, the motorcycle and the village health team member: a proof-of-concept study for the use of the Microsystems Quality Improvement Approach to strengthen the routine immunization system in Uganda
Published in
Implementation Science, March 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13012-015-0215-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dorothy A Bazos, Lea R Ayers LaFave, Gautham Suresh, Kevin C Shannon, Fred Nuwaha, Mark E Splaine

Abstract

Although global efforts to support routine immunization (RI) system strengthening have resulted in higher immunization rates, the World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that the proportion of children receiving recommended DPT3 vaccines has stagnated at 80% for the past 3 years (WHO Fact sheet-Immunization coverage 2014, WHO, 2014). Meeting the WHO goal of 90% national DPT3 coverage may require locally based strategies to support conventional approaches. The Africa Routine Immunization Systems Essentials-System Innovation (ARISE-SI) initiative is a proof-of-concept study to assess the application of the Microsystems Quality Improvement Approach for generating local solutions to strengthen RI systems and reach those unreached by current efforts in Masaka District, Uganda. The ARISE-SI intervention had three components: health unit (HU) advance preparations, an action learning collaborative, and coaching of improvement teams. The intervention was informed and assessed using qualitative and quantitative methods. Data collection focused on changes and outcomes of improvement efforts among five HUs and one district-level team during the intervention (June 2011-February 2012) and five follow-up months. Workshops and team meetings had a 95% attendance rate. All teams gained RI system knowledge and implemented changes to address locally identified problems. Specific changes included: RI register implementation and expanded use, Child Health Card provision and monitoring, staff cross-training, staffing pattern changes, predictable outreach schedules, and health system leader-community leader meetings. Several RI system barriers prevalent across Masaka District (e.g., lack of backup HU gas cylinders, inadequate outreach transportation, and village health team underutilization) were successfully addressed. Three of five HUs significantly increased the vaccines administered. All improvements were sustained 5 months post-intervention. External evaluation validated the findings of high levels of participant engagement, empowerment to make change, and willingness to sustain improvements. The Microsystems Quality Improvement Approach is a comprehensive approach, grounded in systems thinking, and coupled with intensive coaching. It provides a robust framework for engaging teams in the development of unique local solutions that strengthen RI systems in resource poor settings. The sustained improvements in local RI systems from this study provide evidence that this approach may be an effective framework for enhancing the WHO's Reaching Every District (RED) immunization strategy.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 158 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 157 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 27 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 24 15%
Researcher 23 15%
Other 11 7%
Student > Bachelor 11 7%
Other 32 20%
Unknown 30 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 35 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 21 13%
Social Sciences 21 13%
Psychology 7 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 4%
Other 28 18%
Unknown 40 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 22 April 2020.
All research outputs
#6,415,352
of 22,794,367 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#1,111
of 1,721 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#74,270
of 258,838 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#28
of 41 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,794,367 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,721 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.7. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% 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 258,838 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 41 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.