↓ Skip to main content

Setting research priorities across science, technology, and health sectors: the Tanzania experience

Overview of attention for article published in Health Research Policy and Systems, March 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
83 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
Setting research priorities across science, technology, and health sectors: the Tanzania experience
Published in
Health Research Policy and Systems, March 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12961-015-0002-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sylvia de Haan, Rose Kingamkono, Neema Tindamanyire, Hassan Mshinda, Harun Makandi, Flora Tibazarwa, Bruno Kubata, Gabriela Montorzi

Abstract

Identifying research priorities is key to innovation and economic growth, since it informs decision makers on effectively targeting issues that have the greatest potential public benefit. As such, the process of setting research priorities is of pivotal importance for favouring the science, technology, and innovation (STI)-driven development of low- and middle-income countries. We report herein on a major cross-sectoral nationwide research priority setting effort recently carried out in Tanzania by the Tanzania Commission for Science and Technology (COSTECH) in partnership with the Council on Health Research for Development (COHRED) and the NEPAD Agency. The first of its type in the country, the process brought together stakeholders from 42 sub-sectors in science, technology, and health. The cross-sectoral research priority setting process consisted of a 'training-of-trainers' workshop, a demonstration workshop, and seven priority setting workshops delivered to representatives from public and private research and development institutions, universities, non-governmental organizations, and other agencies affiliated to COSTECH. The workshops resulted in ranked listings of research priorities for each sub-sector, totalling approximately 800 priorities. This large number was significantly reduced by an expert panel in order to build a manageable instrument aligned to national development plans that could be used to guide research investments. The Tanzania experience is an instructive example of the challenges and issues to be faced in when attempting to identify research priority areas and setting an STI research agenda in low- and middle-income countries. As countries increase their investment in research, it is essential to increase investment in research management and governance as well, a key and much needed capacity for countries to make proper use of research investments.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 83 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
Unknown 81 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 13%
Researcher 10 12%
Student > Master 10 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 12%
Other 5 6%
Other 18 22%
Unknown 19 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 17 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 14 17%
Business, Management and Accounting 7 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 7%
Engineering 3 4%
Other 15 18%
Unknown 21 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 17 November 2015.
All research outputs
#5,716,193
of 22,794,367 outputs
Outputs from Health Research Policy and Systems
#685
of 1,213 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#65,203
of 259,041 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Research Policy and Systems
#11
of 15 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 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,213 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% 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 259,041 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 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.