↓ Skip to main content

Community health workers and accountability: reflections from an international “think-in”

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal for Equity in Health, 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 (83rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
18 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
114 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
Community health workers and accountability: reflections from an international “think-in”
Published in
International Journal for Equity in Health, May 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12939-018-0781-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marta Schaaf, Jonathan Fox, Stephanie M. Topp, Caitlin Warthin, Lynn P. Freedman, Rachel Sullivan Robinson, Sundararaman Thiagarajan, Kerry Scott, Thoko Maboe, Margareth Zanchetta, Ana Lorena Ruano, Maryse Kok, Svea Closser

Abstract

Community health workers (CHWs) are frequently put forward as a remedy for lack of health system capacity, including challenges associated with health service coverage and with low community engagement in the health system, and expected to enhance or embody health system accountability. During a 'think in', held in June of 2017, a diverse group of practitioners and researchers discussed the topic of CHWs and their possible roles in a larger "accountability ecosystem." This jointly authored commentary resulted from our deliberations. While CHWs are often conceptualized as cogs in a mechanistic health delivery system, at the end of the day, CHWs are people embedded in families, communities, and the health system. CHWs' social position and professional role influence how they are treated and trusted by the health sector and by community members, as well as when, where, and how they can exercise agency and promote accountability. To that end, we put forward several propositions for further conceptual development and research related to the question of CHWs and accountability.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 114 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 114 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 21 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 15%
Researcher 16 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 8%
Student > Postgraduate 7 6%
Other 24 21%
Unknown 20 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 24 21%
Social Sciences 22 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 18 16%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 3%
Computer Science 3 3%
Other 15 13%
Unknown 29 25%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 March 2022.
All research outputs
#2,465,422
of 23,073,835 outputs
Outputs from International Journal for Equity in Health
#439
of 1,931 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#54,029
of 330,748 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal for Equity in Health
#13
of 52 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,073,835 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,931 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 330,748 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 52 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.