↓ Skip to main content

Improvements for international medicine donations: a review of the World Health Organization Guidelines for Medicine Donations, 3rd edition

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#22 of 143)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (83rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
12 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
18 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
Improvements for international medicine donations: a review of the World Health Organization Guidelines for Medicine Donations, 3rd edition
Published in
Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice, October 2015
DOI 10.1186/s40545-015-0045-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nuria Cañigueral-Vila, Jennifer C. Chen, Lindsey Frenkel-Rorden, Richard Laing

Abstract

Some humanitarian and development organizations respond to major natural disasters and emergencies by donating medicines. Many provide medicines on a routine basis to support health systems, particularly those run by Faith-Based Organizations. Although such donations can provide essential medicines to populations in great need, inappropriate donations also take place, with burdensome consequences. The World Health Organization (WHO) has developed the interagency Guidelines for Medicine Donations for use by donors and recipients in the context of emergency aid and international development assistance. Although comprehensive in nature and transferable to various emergency situations, adjustments to both content and formatting would improve this resource. Recommendations for the next version of these guidelines include: specific wording and consistent formatting; definition of who is a recipient, clear distinction between acute and long-term emergencies, and proper donation procedures pertaining to each; inclusion of visual aides such as flowcharts, checklists, and photos; and improving the citations system.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
South Africa 1 6%
Unknown 17 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 3 17%
Student > Postgraduate 3 17%
Researcher 3 17%
Student > Master 2 11%
Other 2 11%
Other 1 6%
Unknown 4 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 44%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 11%
Social Sciences 2 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 6%
Unknown 5 28%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 23 November 2016.
All research outputs
#1,494,400
of 11,611,192 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice
#22
of 143 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#41,945
of 249,593 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice
#3
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,611,192 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 143 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 249,593 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 6 of them.