↓ Skip to main content

An in-depth assessment of India’s Mother and Child Tracking System (MCTS) in Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, August 2015
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 (89th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
4 X users

Readers on

mendeley
137 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
An in-depth assessment of India’s Mother and Child Tracking System (MCTS) in Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, August 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12913-015-0920-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rajeev Gera, Nithiyananthan Muthusamy, Amruta Bahulekar, Amit Sharma, Prem Singh, Amrita Sekhar, Vivek Singh

Abstract

India's Mother and Child Tracking System (MCTS)(1) is an information system for tracking maternal and child health beneficiaries in India's public health system, and improving service delivery planning and outcomes. This ambitious project was launched in 2009 and currently covers all states in India, but no in-depth assessment of the system has been conducted. This study by the Public Health Foundation of India (PHFI) evaluated the performance of MCTS and identified implementation challenges in areas in Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh (UP) in December 2012. Two assessment methods were employed: a Data Quality Assessment (DQA) to evaluate data quality and an assessment survey to identify implementation challenges. The survey comprised semi-structured questionnaires for health staff in the sampled districts, observation checklists and survey investigator notes. Purposive sampling was used for selecting two districts in each state and two blocks in each district. For the DQA, 45 mothers who became pregnant and 84 children born within the stipulated timeframes were randomly sampled. DQA overall performance numbers were 34 % for pregnant women and 33 % for children in the Rajasthan study areas, while UP's performance numbers were 18 % for pregnant women and 25 % for children. Weaknesses in the MCTS' data completeness accounted for much of this performance shortfall. The beneficiary profiles for Rajasthan were largely incomplete, and the MCTS in UP struggled to register beneficiaries. Shared challenges in both states were the absence of clear processes and guidelines governing data processes, and the lack of systematic monitoring and supervision frameworks for MCTS implementation. As a result, Front Line Health Workers (FHWs) were overburdened with data documentation work, and there were long delays in data capturing. FHWs and block level health officials were not adequately trained in using the MCTS. UP staff reported unreliable internet and electricity availability, lack of dedicated data entry personnel, and a shortage of consumables such as MCTS registers. There is an urgent need to create data processes and supervision guidelines that complement existing workflows and service delivery priorities. Health staff should be trained to implement these guidelines. MCTS outputs, such as service delivery planning tools, should replace existing tools once data quality improves.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 137 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
India 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Unknown 135 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 29 21%
Researcher 21 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 12%
Student > Postgraduate 11 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 5%
Other 26 19%
Unknown 27 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 38 28%
Social Sciences 16 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 11%
Business, Management and Accounting 7 5%
Computer Science 5 4%
Other 22 16%
Unknown 34 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 09 October 2022.
All research outputs
#2,046,383
of 23,445,423 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#777
of 7,833 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,845
of 265,779 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#12
of 126 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,445,423 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,833 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 265,779 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 126 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.