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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Setting targets for human resources for eye health in sub-Saharan Africa: what evidence should be used?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Human Resources for Health, March 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12960-016-0107-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Paul Courtright, Wanjiku Mathenge, Amir Bedri Kello, Colin Cook, Khumbo Kalua, Susan Lewallen |
| Abstract |
With a global target set at reducing vision loss by 25% by the year 2019, sub-Saharan Africa with an estimated 4.8 million blind persons will require human resources for eye health (HReH) that need to be available, appropriately skilled, supported, and productive. Targets for HReH are useful for planning, monitoring, and resource mobilization, but they need to be updated and informed by evidence of effectiveness and efficiency. Supporting evidence should take into consideration (1) ever-changing disease-specific issues including the epidemiology, the complexity of diagnosis and treatment, and the technology needed for diagnosis and treatment of each condition; (2) the changing demands for vision-related services of an increasingly urbanized population; and (3) interconnected health system issues that affect productivity and quality. The existing targets for HReH and some of the existing strategies such as task shifting of cataract surgery and trichiasis surgery, as well as the scope of eye care interventions for primary eye care workers, will need to be re-evaluated and re-defined against such evidence or supported by new evidence. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 33% |
| Rwanda | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 3 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 50% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 33% |
| Scientists | 1 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 112 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 111 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 23 | 21% |
| Researcher | 16 | 14% |
| Other | 10 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 8% |
| Other | 19 | 17% |
| Unknown | 26 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 42 | 38% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 14 | 13% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 4% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 4% |
| Psychology | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 14 | 13% |
| Unknown | 29 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 31 March 2016.
All research outputs
#7,047,954
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Human Resources for Health
#731
of 1,261 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#92,943
of 314,938 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Human Resources for Health
#12
of 15 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 71st 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 40th percentile – i.e., 40% 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 314,938 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 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.