↓ Skip to main content

Towards a simple typology of international health partnerships

Overview of attention for article published in Globalization and Health, December 2015
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 (92nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
16 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
96 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
Towards a simple typology of international health partnerships
Published in
Globalization and Health, December 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12992-015-0132-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Suzanne Edwards, Dan Ritman, Emily Burn, Natascha Dekkers, Paula Baraitser

Abstract

International health partnerships are one approach to capacity building in health systems. The evidence base for institutional partnerships for health service development remains weak and evaluation of the process and outcomes of health partnerships is a priority. The variability of partnerships contributes to the challenge of understanding their effectiveness and a typology of partnerships could aid evaluation. We analysed the proposals for all of the partnerships that received funding from the Tropical Health and Education Trust in 2012-2013 to develop such a typology. Our data consisted of 54 successful project proposals for health partnerships funded by THET in 2012-2013. A coding strategy was developed and modified through five rounds of coding, discussion, modification of the coding strategy and re-coding. The final coding strategy classified partnerships according to impact, approach and relationships between partners. All 54 (100 %) of the partnerships in our sample planned to deliver training and 30 (56 %) aimed to deliver infrastructure strengthening in addition to training. 24 (44 %) aimed to build generic skills and 30 (56 %) specialist skills. 33(61 %) of the partners based in low and middle income countries had a scope of influence at national or international level and 33 (61 %) partnerships were between partners with an equal scope of influence. We suggest that those partnerships that focus on infrastructure strengthening and the development of generic skills might have more sustainable impacts in situations of high health care worker mobility and 12/54 partnerships met these criteria. We classified partnerships by their impact (scope of influence of LMIC partner and focus on individual/organisational development); approach to health systems strengthening (training/infrastructure; generic/specialist) and relationships (relative scope of influence between partners; mode of delivery - with an NGO partner or not). This is a first step in generating questions about partnership effectiveness that may be answered through evaluation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 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 96 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 96 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 18 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 16%
Researcher 10 10%
Other 4 4%
Student > Bachelor 4 4%
Other 19 20%
Unknown 26 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 26 27%
Social Sciences 10 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 9%
Business, Management and Accounting 5 5%
Psychology 4 4%
Other 12 13%
Unknown 30 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 20 November 2018.
All research outputs
#1,742,264
of 23,798,792 outputs
Outputs from Globalization and Health
#287
of 1,136 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#30,706
of 394,210 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Globalization and Health
#4
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,798,792 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,136 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% 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 394,210 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.