↓ Skip to main content

Integrating views on support for mid-level health worker performance: a concept mapping study with regional health system actors in rural Guatemala

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal for Equity in Health, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
127 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
Integrating views on support for mid-level health worker performance: a concept mapping study with regional health system actors in rural Guatemala
Published in
International Journal for Equity in Health, October 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12939-015-0225-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alison R. Hernández, Anna-Karin Hurtig, Kjerstin Dahlblom, Miguel San Sebastián

Abstract

Mid-level health workers are on the front-lines in underserved areas in many LMICs, and their performance is critical for improving the health of vulnerable populations. However, improving performance in low-resource settings is complex and highly dependent on the organizational context of local health systems. This study aims to examine the views of actors from different levels of a regional health system in Guatemala on actions to support the performance of auxiliary nurses, a cadre of mid-level health workers with a prominent role in public sector service delivery. A concept mapping study was carried out to develop an integrated view on organizational support and identify locally relevant strategies for strengthening performance. A total of 93 regional and district managers, and primary and secondary care health workers participated in generating ideas on actions needed to support auxiliary nurses' performance. Ideas were consolidated into 30 action items, which were structured through sorting and rating exercises, involving a total of 135 of managers and health workers. Maps depicting participants' integrated views on domains of action and dynamics in sub-groups' interests were generated using a sequence of multivariate statistical analyses, and interpreted by regional managers. The combined input of health system actors provided a multi-faceted view of actions needed to support performance, which were organized in six domains, including: Communication and coordination, Tools to orient work, Organizational climate of support, Motivation through recognition, Professional development and Skills development. The nature of relationships across hierarchical levels was identified as a cross-cutting theme. Pattern matching and go-zone maps indicated directions for action based on areas of consensus and difference across sub-groups of actors. This study indicates that auxiliary nurses' performance is interconnected with the performance of other health system actors who require support, including managers and community-level collaborators. Organizational climate is critical for making auxiliary nurses feel supported, and greater attention to improving the quality of hierarchical relationships is needed in LMIC settings. The participatory nature of the concept-mapping process enabled health system actors to collaborate in co-production of context-specific knowledge needed to guide efforts to strengthen performance in a vulnerable region.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 127 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 2%
Unknown 125 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 19 15%
Researcher 16 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 13 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 7%
Student > Bachelor 7 6%
Other 22 17%
Unknown 41 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 12%
Social Sciences 15 12%
Business, Management and Accounting 7 6%
Psychology 6 5%
Other 16 13%
Unknown 46 36%
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 04 November 2019.
All research outputs
#5,891,195
of 22,829,683 outputs
Outputs from International Journal for Equity in Health
#923
of 1,904 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#71,311
of 278,190 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal for Equity in Health
#23
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,829,683 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 1,904 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% 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 278,190 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 45 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.