↓ Skip to main content

Public policies and health systems in Sahelian Africa: theoretical context and empirical specificity

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
65 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
Public policies and health systems in Sahelian Africa: theoretical context and empirical specificity
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, November 2015
DOI 10.1186/1472-6963-15-s3-s3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jean-Pierre Olivier de Sardan, Valéry Ridde

Abstract

This research on user fee removal in three African countries is located at the interface of public policy analysis and health systems research. Public policy analysis has gradually become a vast and multifaceted area of research consisting of a number of perspectives. But the context of public policies in Sahelian Africa has some specific characteristics. They are largely shaped by international institutions and development agencies, on the basis of very common 'one-size-fits-all' models; the practical norms that govern the actual behaviour of employees are far removed from official norms; public goods and services are co-delivered by a string of different actors and institutions, with little coordination between them; the State is widely regarded by the majority of citizens as untrustworthy. In such a context, setting up and implementing health user fee exemptions in Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger was beset by major problems, lack of coherence and bottlenecks that affect public policy-making and implementation in these countries.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 65 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Rwanda 1 2%
Niger 1 2%
Unknown 62 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 21 32%
Researcher 6 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 6%
Student > Bachelor 4 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 6%
Other 8 12%
Unknown 18 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 23%
Social Sciences 13 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 6%
Computer Science 3 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 5%
Other 10 15%
Unknown 17 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 18 February 2019.
All research outputs
#7,325,864
of 23,096,849 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#3,637
of 7,740 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#93,293
of 286,401 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#45
of 129 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,096,849 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,740 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% 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 286,401 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 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 129 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.