↓ Skip to main content

The contribution of traditional healers' clinics to public health care system in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: a cross-sectional study

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, December 2011
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 (90th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (54th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
2 X users
facebook
4 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
94 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
285 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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 contribution of traditional healers' clinics to public health care system in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: a cross-sectional study
Published in
Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, December 2011
DOI 10.1186/1746-4269-7-39
Pubmed ID
Authors

Wubet Birhan, Mirutse Giday, Tilahun Teklehaymanot

Abstract

Ethiopian people have been using traditional medicine since time immemorial with 80% of its population dependent on traditional medicines. However, the documentation of traditional healers' clinics contribution to modern public health system in cosmopolitan cities is scanty. Studies conducted so far are limited and focused on the perceptions and practices of modern and traditional health practitioners about traditional medicine. Thus, a cross sectional study was conducted from February to May 2010 to assess the contribution of traditional healers' clinics to public health care system in Addis Ababa.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 285 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 <1%
Botswana 1 <1%
Unknown 282 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 44 15%
Researcher 26 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 9%
Student > Bachelor 23 8%
Student > Postgraduate 18 6%
Other 64 22%
Unknown 84 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 59 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 31 11%
Social Sciences 24 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 20 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 14 5%
Other 43 15%
Unknown 94 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 16 July 2018.
All research outputs
#2,791,416
of 22,663,150 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine
#86
of 730 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,366
of 239,902 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine
#5
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,663,150 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 730 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 239,902 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 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 54% of its contemporaries.