↓ Skip to main content

Capacity of Ugandan public sector health facilities to prevent and control non-communicable diseases: an assessment based upon WHO-PEN standards

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, August 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 (86th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
50 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
233 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
Capacity of Ugandan public sector health facilities to prevent and control non-communicable diseases: an assessment based upon WHO-PEN standards
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, August 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12913-018-3426-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hilary E. Rogers, Ann R. Akiteng, Gerald Mutungi, Adrienne S. Ettinger, Jeremy I. Schwartz

Abstract

Non-communicable diseases (NCDs) are increasing in prevalence in low-income countries including Uganda. The Uganda Ministry of Health has prioritized NCD prevention, early diagnosis, and management. However, research on the capacity of public sector health facilities to address NCDs is limited. We developed a survey guided by the literature and the standards of the World Health Organization Pacakage of Essential Noncommunicable Disease Interventions for Primary Health Care in Low-Resource Settings. We used this tool to conduct a needs assessment in 53 higher-level public sector facilities throughout Uganda, including all Regional Referral Hospitals (RRH) and a purposive sample of General Hospitals (GH) and Health Centre IVs (HCIV), to: (1) assess their capacity to detect and manage NCDs; (2) describe provider knowledge and practices regarding the management of NCDs; and (3) identify areas in need of focused improvement. We collected data on human resources, equipment, NCD screening and management, medicines, and laboratory tests. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize our findings. We identified significant resource gaps at all sampled facilities. All facilities reported deficiencies in NCD screening and management services. Less than half of all RRH and GH had an automated blood pressure machine. The only laboratory test uniformly available at all surveyed facilities was random blood glucose. Sub-specialty NCD clinics were available in some facilities with the most common type being a diabetes clinic present at eleven (85%) RRHs. These facilities offered enhanced services to patients with diabetes. Surveyed facilities had limited use of NCD patient registries and NCD management guidelines. Most facilities (46% RRH, 23% GH, 7% HCIV) did not track patients with NCDs by using registries and only 4 (31%) RRHs, 4 (15%) GHs, and 1 (7%) HCIVs had access to diabetes management guidelines. Despite inter-facility variability, none of the facilities in our study met the WHO-PEN standards for essential tools and medicines to implement effective NCD interventions. In Uganda, improvements in the allocation of human resources and essential medicines and technologies, coupled with uptake in the use of quality assurance modalities are desperately needed in order to adequately address the rapidly growing NCD burden.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 233 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 233 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 42 18%
Researcher 22 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 8%
Student > Bachelor 19 8%
Lecturer 8 3%
Other 30 13%
Unknown 93 40%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 44 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 42 18%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 8 3%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 8 3%
Social Sciences 7 3%
Other 24 10%
Unknown 100 43%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 13 December 2020.
All research outputs
#2,191,582
of 23,849,058 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#856
of 7,933 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#45,746
of 332,270 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#39
of 196 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,849,058 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,933 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 332,270 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 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 196 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.