↓ Skip to main content

Challenges associated with tracking resources allocation for reproductive health in sub-Saharan African countries: the UNFPA/NIDI resource flows project experience

Overview of attention for article published in Reproductive Health, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
56 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
Challenges associated with tracking resources allocation for reproductive health in sub-Saharan African countries: the UNFPA/NIDI resource flows project experience
Published in
Reproductive Health, May 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12978-015-0033-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Estelle M Sidze, Erik Beekink, Beatrice W Maina

Abstract

Universal access to reproductive health services entails strengthening health systems, but requires significant resource commitments as well as efficient and effective use of those resources. A number of international organizations and governments in developing countries are putting efforts into tracking the flow of health resources in order to inform resource mobilization and allocation, strategic planning, priority setting, advocacy and general policy making. The UNFPA/NIDI-led Resource Flows Project ("The UNFPA/NIDI RF Project") has conducted annual surveys since 1997 to monitor progress achieved by developing countries in implementing reproductive health financial targets. This commentary summarizes the Project experiences and challenges in gathering data on allocation of resources for reproductive health at the domestic level in sub-Saharan African countries. One key lesson learnt from the Project experience is the need for strengthening tracking mechanisms in sub-Saharan African countries and making information on reproductive health resources and expenditures available, in particular the private sector resources.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 56 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 56 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 21 38%
Researcher 7 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 5%
Student > Postgraduate 2 4%
Other 5 9%
Unknown 14 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 23%
Social Sciences 10 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 14%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 4%
Other 7 13%
Unknown 13 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 23 June 2015.
All research outputs
#12,925,574
of 22,807,037 outputs
Outputs from Reproductive Health
#918
of 1,413 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#119,699
of 264,508 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Reproductive Health
#33
of 44 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,807,037 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,413 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.0. 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 264,508 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 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 44 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.