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 |
Implementing a national health research for development platform in a low-income country – a review of Malawi’s Health Research Capacity Strengthening Initiative
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Health Research Policy and Systems, April 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12961-016-0094-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Donald C. Cole, Lot Jata Nyirenda, Nadia Fazal, Imelda Bates |
| Abstract |
National health research for development (R4D) platforms in lower income countries (LICs) are few. The Health Research Capacity Strengthening Initiative (HRCSI, 2008-2013) was a national systems-strengthening programme in Malawi involved in national priority setting, decision-making on funding, and health research actor mobilization. We adopted a retrospective mixed-methods evaluation approach, starting with information gleaned from reports (HRCSI and Malawian) and databases (HRCSI). A framework of a health research system (actors and components) guided report review and interview guide development. From a list of 173 individuals involved in HRCSI, 30 interviewees were selected within categories of stakeholders. Interviews were conducted face-to-face or via telephone/Skype over 1 month, documented with extensive notes. Analysis of emerging themes was iterative among co-evaluators, with synthesis according to the implementation stage. Major HRCSI outputs included (1) National research priority-setting: through the production of themed background papers by Malawian health researchers and broad consultation, HRCSI led the development of a National Health Research Agenda (2012-2016), widely regarded as one of HRCSI's foremost achievements. (2) Institutional research capacity: there was an overwhelming view that HRCSI had produced a step-change in the number of high calibre scientists in Malawi and in fostering research interest among young Malawians, providing support for around 56 MSc and PhD students, and over 400 undergraduate health-related projects. (3) Knowledge sharing: HRCSI supported research dissemination through national and institutional meetings by sponsoring attendance at conferences and through close relationships with individuals in the print media for disseminating information. (4) Sustainability: From 2011-2013, HRCSI significantly improved research systems, processes and leadership in Malawi, but further strengthening was needed for HRCSI to be effectively integrated into government structures and sustained long-term. Overall, HRCSI carried out many components relevant to a national health research system coordinating platform, and became competent at managing over half of 12 areas of performance for research councils. Debate about its location and challenges to sustainability remain open questions. More experimentation in the setting-up of national health R4D platforms to promote country 'ownership' is needed, accompanied by evaluation processes that facilitate learning and knowledge exchange of better practices among key actors in health R4D systems. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Malawi | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 125 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Sierra Leone | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 123 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 25 | 20% |
| Researcher | 20 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 16 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 5% |
| Other | 6 | 5% |
| Other | 13 | 10% |
| Unknown | 39 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 19 | 15% |
| Social Sciences | 16 | 13% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 16 | 13% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 6 | 5% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 4 | 3% |
| Other | 24 | 19% |
| Unknown | 40 | 32% |
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 14 April 2020.
All research outputs
#6,300,059
of 22,858,915 outputs
Outputs from Health Research Policy and Systems
#744
of 1,215 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#89,804
of 300,229 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Research Policy and Systems
#14
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,858,915 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,215 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% 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 300,229 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 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.