↓ Skip to main content

Dissemination and use of WHO family planning guidance and tools: a qualitative assessment

Overview of attention for article published in Health Research Policy and Systems, May 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 (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
88 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
Dissemination and use of WHO family planning guidance and tools: a qualitative assessment
Published in
Health Research Policy and Systems, May 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12961-018-0321-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Joan Marie Kraft, Titilope Oduyebo, Tara C. Jatlaoui, Kathryn M. Curtis, Maura K. Whiteman, Lauren B. Zapata, Mary Eluned Gaffield

Abstract

As countries continue to improve their family planning (FP) programmes, they may draw on WHO's evidence-based FP guidance and tools (i.e. materials) that support the provision of quality FP services. To better understand the use and perceived impact of the materials and ways to strengthen their use by countries, we conducted qualitative interviews with WHO regional advisors, and with stakeholders in Ethiopia and Senegal who use WHO materials. WHO uses a multi-faceted strategy to directly and indirectly disseminate materials to country-level decision-makers. The materials are used to develop national family planning guidelines, protocols and training curricula. Participants reported that they trust the WHO materials because they are evidence based, and that they adapt materials to the country context (e.g. remove content on methods not available in the country). The main barrier to the use of national materials is resource constraints. Although the system and processes for dissemination work, improvements might contribute to increased use of the materials. For example, providers may benefit from additional guidance on how to counsel women with characteristics or medical conditions where contraceptive method eligibility criteria do not clearly rule in or rule out a method.

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 88 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 88 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 17 19%
Researcher 9 10%
Student > Bachelor 8 9%
Student > Postgraduate 6 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 6%
Other 12 14%
Unknown 31 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 19%
Social Sciences 13 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 5%
Environmental Science 2 2%
Other 9 10%
Unknown 36 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 June 2018.
All research outputs
#2,859,088
of 23,070,218 outputs
Outputs from Health Research Policy and Systems
#425
of 1,228 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#60,864
of 330,076 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Research Policy and Systems
#22
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,070,218 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,228 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% 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 330,076 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 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.