↓ Skip to main content

National health research system in Malawi: dead, moribund, tepid or flourishing?

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, March 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 (81st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
82 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
National health research system in Malawi: dead, moribund, tepid or flourishing?
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, March 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12913-015-0796-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Joses Muthuri Kirigia, Damson D Kathyola, Adamson S Muula, Martin Matthew Okechukwu Ota

Abstract

Several instruments at both the global and regional levels to which countries in the WHO African Region are party call for action by governments to strengthen national health research systems (NHRS). This paper debates the extent to which Malawi has fulfilled this commitment. Some research literature has characterized African research - and by implication NHRS - as moribund. In our view, the Malawi government, with partner support, has made effort to strengthen the capacities of individuals and institutions that generate scientific knowledge. This is reflected in the Malawi national NHRS index (MNSR4HI) of 51%, which is within the 50%-69% range, and thus, it should be characterized as tepid with significant potential to flourish. Governance of research for health (R4H) has improved with the promulgation of the Malawi Science and Technology Act in 2003. However, lack of an explicit R4H policy, a strategic plan and a national R4H management forum undermines the government's effectiveness in overseeing the operation of the NHRS. The mean index of 'governance of R4H' sub-functions was 67%, implying that research governance is tepid. Malawi has a national health research focal point, an R4H program, and four public and 11 private universities. The average index of 'creating and sustaining resources' sub-functions was 48.6%, meaning that R4H human and infrastructural resources can be considered to be in a moribund state. The average index of 'producing and using research' sub-functions of 50.4% implies that production and utilization of research findings in policy development and public health practice can best be described as tepid. Efforts need to be intensified to boost national research productivity. Over the five financial years 2011-2016 the government plans to spend 0.26% of its total health budget on R4H. The mean index of 'financing' sub-functions of 23.6% is within the range of 1-49%, which is considered moribund. A functional NHRS is a prerequisite for the achievement of the health system goal of universal health coverage. Malawi, like majority of African countries, needs to invest more in strengthening R4H governance, developing and sustaining R4H resources, and producing and using research findings.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 82 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Netherlands 1 1%
Unknown 80 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 17 21%
Researcher 13 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 7%
Student > Bachelor 4 5%
Other 8 10%
Unknown 22 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 16%
Social Sciences 12 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 5%
Engineering 3 4%
Other 21 26%
Unknown 21 26%
Attention Score in Context

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 14 April 2020.
All research outputs
#3,675,430
of 22,842,950 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#1,627
of 7,640 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#47,730
of 264,675 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#20
of 94 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,842,950 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,640 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 264,675 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 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 94 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.