↓ Skip to main content

Strengthening post-graduate educational capacity for health policy and systems research and analysis: the strategy of the Consortium for Health Policy and Systems Analysis in Africa

Overview of attention for article published in Health Research Policy and Systems, April 2016
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)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
30 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
108 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
Strengthening post-graduate educational capacity for health policy and systems research and analysis: the strategy of the Consortium for Health Policy and Systems Analysis in Africa
Published in
Health Research Policy and Systems, April 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12961-016-0097-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ermin Erasmus, Uta Lehmann, Irene Akua Agyepong, John Alwar, Don de Savigny, Peter Kamuzora, Tolib Mirzoev, Nonhlanhla Nxumalo, Göran Tomson, Benjamin Uzochukwu, Lucy Gilson

Abstract

The last 5-10 years have seen significant international momentum build around the field of health policy and systems research and analysis (HPSR + A). Strengthening post-graduate teaching is seen as central to the further development of this field in low- and middle-income countries. However, thus far, there has been little reflection on and documentation of what is taught in this field, how teaching is carried out, educators' challenges and what future teaching might look like. Contributing to such reflection and documentation, this paper reports on a situation analysis and inventory of HPSR + A post-graduate teaching conducted among the 11 African and European partners of the Consortium for Health Policy and Systems Analysis in Africa (CHEPSAA), a capacity development collaboration. A first questionnaire completed by the partners collected information on organisational teaching contexts, while a second collected information on 104 individual courses (more in-depth information was subsequently collected on 17 of the courses). The questionnaires yielded a mix of qualitative and quantitative data, which were analysed through counts, cross-tabulations, and the inductive grouping of material into themes. In addition, this paper draws information from internal reports on CHEPSAA's activities, as well as its external evaluation. The analysis highlighted the fluid boundaries of HPSR + A and the range and variability of the courses addressing the field, the important, though not exclusive, role of schools of public health in teaching relevant material, large variations in the time investments required to complete courses, the diversity of student target audiences, the limited availability of distance and non-classroom learning activities, and the continued importance of old-fashioned teaching styles and activities. This paper argues that in order to improve post-graduate teaching and continue to build the field of HPSR + A, key questions need to be addressed around educational practice issues such as the time allocated for HPSR + A courses, teaching activities, and assessments, whether HPSR + A should be taught as a cross-cutting theme in post-graduate degrees or an area of specialisation, and the organisation of teaching given the multi-disciplinary nature of the field. It ends by describing some of CHEPSAA's key post-graduate teaching development activities and how these activities have addressed the key questions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 30 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 108 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 107 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 22 20%
Student > Master 18 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 6%
Student > Postgraduate 7 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 5%
Other 23 21%
Unknown 26 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 28 26%
Social Sciences 15 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 11%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Other 17 16%
Unknown 30 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. 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 06 September 2021.
All research outputs
#1,574,406
of 23,505,010 outputs
Outputs from Health Research Policy and Systems
#187
of 1,241 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,661
of 302,406 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Research Policy and Systems
#4
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,505,010 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,241 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 302,406 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 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.