↓ Skip to main content

Global health leadership training in resource-limited settings: a collaborative approach by academic institutions and local health care programs in Uganda

Overview of attention for article published in Human Resources for Health, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
34 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
318 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
Global health leadership training in resource-limited settings: a collaborative approach by academic institutions and local health care programs in Uganda
Published in
Human Resources for Health, November 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12960-015-0087-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Damalie Nakanjako, Elizabeth Namagala, Aggrey Semeere, Joanitor Kigozi, Joseph Sempa, John Bosco Ddamulira, Achilles Katamba, Sam Biraro, Sarah Naikoba, Yohana Mashalla, Carey Farquhar, Afya Bora Consortium members, Nelson Sewankambo

Abstract

Due to a limited health workforce, many health care providers in Africa must take on health leadership roles with minimal formal training in leadership. Hence, the need to equip health care providers with practical skills required to lead high-impact health care programs. In Uganda, the Afya Bora Global Health Leadership Fellowship is implemented through the Makerere University College of Health Sciences (MakCHS) and her partner institutions. Lessons learned from the program, presented in this paper, may guide development of in-service training opportunities to enhance leadership skills of health workers in resource-limited settings. The Afya Bora Consortium, a consortium of four African and four U.S. academic institutions, offers 1-year global health leadership-training opportunities for nurses and doctors. Applications are received and vetted internationally by members of the consortium institutions in Botswana, Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, and the USA. Fellows have 3 months of didactic modules and 9 months of mentored field attachment with 80% time dedicated to fellowship activities. Fellows' projects and experiences, documented during weekly mentor-fellow meetings and monthly mentoring team meetings, were compiled and analyzed manually using pre-determined themes to assess the effect of the program on fellows' daily leadership opportunities. Between January 2011 and January 2015, 15 Ugandan fellows (nine doctors and six nurses) participated in the program. Each fellow received 8 weeks of didactic modules held at one of the African partner institutions and three online modules to enhance fellows' foundation in leadership, communication, monitoring and evaluation, health informatics, research methodology, grant writing, implementation science, and responsible conduct of research. In addition, fellows embarked on innovative projects that covered a wide spectrum of global health challenges including critical analysis of policy formulation and review processes, bottlenecks in implementation of national HIV early infant diagnosis and prevention of mother-to-child HIV-transmission programs, and use of routine laboratory data about antibiotic resistance to guide updates of essential drug lists. In-service leadership training was feasible, with ensured protected time for fellows to generate evidence-based solutions to challenges within their work environment. With structured mentorship, collaborative activities at academic institutions and local health care programs equipped health care providers with leadership skills.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 318 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Indonesia 1 <1%
Ecuador 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Sierra Leone 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 313 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 55 17%
Researcher 41 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 39 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 21 7%
Student > Bachelor 20 6%
Other 70 22%
Unknown 72 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 67 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 51 16%
Social Sciences 30 9%
Psychology 15 5%
Unspecified 12 4%
Other 55 17%
Unknown 88 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 2015.
All research outputs
#7,896,932
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Human Resources for Health
#807
of 1,261 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#111,913
of 392,477 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Human Resources for Health
#13
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,261 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.3. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% 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 392,477 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 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.