↓ Skip to main content

Health information priorities for more effective implementation and monitoring of non-communicable disease programs in low- and middle-income countries: lessons from the Pacific

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
59 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
Health information priorities for more effective implementation and monitoring of non-communicable disease programs in low- and middle-income countries: lessons from the Pacific
Published in
BMC Medicine, September 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12916-015-0482-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hebe N. Gouda, Nicola C. Richards, Robert Beaglehole, Ruth Bonita, Alan D. Lopez

Abstract

Non-communicable diseases (NCDs) place enormous burdens on individuals and health systems. While there has been significant global progress to guide the development of national NCD monitoring programs, many countries still struggle to adequately establish critical information systems to prioritise NCD control approaches. In this paper, we use the recent experience of the Pacific as a case study to highlight four key lessons about prioritising strategies for health information system development for monitoring NCDs: first, NCD interventions must be chosen strategically, taking into account local disease burden and capacities; second, NCD monitoring efforts must align with those interventions so as to be capable of evaluating progress; third, in order to ensure efficiency and sustainability, NCD monitoring strategies must be integrated into existing health information systems; finally, countries should monitor the implementation of key policies to control food and tobacco industries. Prioritising NCD interventions to suit local needs is critical and should be accompanied by careful consideration of the most appropriate and feasible monitoring strategies to track and evaluate progress.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 2%
Unknown 58 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 20%
Student > Master 9 15%
Student > Postgraduate 5 8%
Lecturer 5 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 7%
Other 13 22%
Unknown 11 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 22%
Social Sciences 8 14%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 5%
Engineering 3 5%
Other 5 8%
Unknown 14 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 20 September 2018.
All research outputs
#6,105,479
of 22,829,083 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#2,331
of 3,430 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#73,587
of 274,256 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#78
of 95 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,829,083 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,430 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 43.5. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% 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 274,256 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 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 95 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.