↓ Skip to main content

Does the distribution of health care benefits in Kenya meet the principles of universal coverage?

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, January 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
5 news outlets
policy
2 policy sources
twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
51 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
199 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
Does the distribution of health care benefits in Kenya meet the principles of universal coverage?
Published in
BMC Public Health, January 2012
DOI 10.1186/1471-2458-12-20
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jane Chuma, Thomas Maina, John Ataguba

Abstract

The 58th World Health Assembly called for all health systems to move towards universal coverage where everyone has access to key promotive, preventive, curative and rehabilitative health interventions at an affordable cost. Universal coverage involves ensuring that health care benefits are distributed on the basis of need for care and not on ability to pay. The distribution of health care benefits is therefore an important policy question, which health systems should address. The aim of this study is to assess the distribution of health care benefits in the Kenyan health system, compare changes over two time periods and demonstrate the extent to which the distribution meets the principles of universal coverage.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 199 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Kenya 3 2%
Indonesia 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 191 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 53 27%
Researcher 26 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 11%
Student > Bachelor 12 6%
Student > Postgraduate 9 5%
Other 27 14%
Unknown 51 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 46 23%
Social Sciences 32 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 18 9%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 17 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 4%
Other 22 11%
Unknown 56 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 48. 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 02 November 2021.
All research outputs
#885,442
of 25,559,053 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#943
of 17,695 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,052
of 249,459 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#7
of 217 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,559,053 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 17,695 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 249,459 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 217 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.