↓ Skip to main content

The World Health Organization and global health estimates: improving collaboration and capacity

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, March 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
95 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
35 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
124 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 World Health Organization and global health estimates: improving collaboration and capacity
Published in
BMC Medicine, March 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12916-015-0286-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ties Boerma, Colin D Mathers

Abstract

Global, regional, and country statistics on population and health indicators are important for assessing development and health progress and for guiding resource allocation; however, data are often lacking, especially in low- and middle-income countries. To fill the gaps, statistical modelling is frequently used to produce comparable health statistics across countries that can be combined to produce regional and global statistics. The World Health Organization (WHO), in collaboration with other United Nations agencies and academic experts, regularly updates estimates for key indicators and involves its Member States in the process. Academic institutions also publish estimates independent from the WHO using different methods. The use of sophisticated statistical estimation methods to fill missing values for countries can reduce the pressures on governments and development agencies to improve information systems. Efforts to improve estimates must be accompanied by concerted attempts to address data gaps, common standards for documentation, sharing of data and methods, and regular interaction and collaboration among all groups involved.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 95 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 124 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 120 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 23 19%
Researcher 18 15%
Student > Bachelor 11 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 6%
Other 17 14%
Unknown 39 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 29 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 23 19%
Social Sciences 6 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 3%
Other 18 15%
Unknown 39 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 72. 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 21 June 2022.
All research outputs
#541,914
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#407
of 3,613 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,953
of 261,006 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#14
of 78 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 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 3,613 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 44.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 261,006 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 78 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.