↓ Skip to main content

The coping strategies of front-line health workers in the context of user fee exemptions in Niger

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 (74th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users

Readers on

mendeley
113 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
The coping strategies of front-line health workers in the context of user fee exemptions in Niger
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, November 2015
DOI 10.1186/1472-6963-15-s3-s1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Aïssa Diarra, Abdoulaye Ousseini

Abstract

When user fee exemptions were introduced for children under five years of age in Niger, front-line staff in the health system were not consulted in advance, and various obstacles seriously hindered the policy's implementation. Health workers developed two types of coping strategies. The first dealt with shortcomings of the policy implementation process related to management tools, drug stocks, co-existence of the fee exemption and cost recovery systems, and, above all, supply management for medicines (ordering from private companies, issuing makeshift prescriptions). The second involved clientelism, circumvention of regulations, and misappropriation of resources. Adverse effects have arisen due to both the failings of the health system and the practices of health workers. These include a focus on the commercial management of patients, the most 'costly' of whom sometimes find themselves being refused treatment, patients roaming in search of medicines and treatment, and a decline in quality of care.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 113 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 113 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 25 22%
Student > Bachelor 9 8%
Researcher 8 7%
Student > Postgraduate 8 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 7%
Other 17 15%
Unknown 38 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 24 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 12%
Social Sciences 8 7%
Psychology 4 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Other 18 16%
Unknown 43 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 15 November 2015.
All research outputs
#6,487,891
of 25,311,095 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#2,928
of 8,604 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#75,721
of 293,088 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#34
of 128 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,311,095 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,604 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% 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 293,088 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 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 128 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 72% of its contemporaries.