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 |
Effect of pay for performance to improve quality of maternal and child care in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Public Health, April 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12889-016-2982-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ashis Das, Saji S. Gopalan, Daniel Chandramohan |
| Abstract |
Pay for Performance (P4P) mechanisms to health facilities and providers are currently being tested in several low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) to improve maternal and child health (MCH). This paper reviews the existing evidence on the effect of P4P program on quality of MCH care in LMICs. A systematic review of literature was conducted according to a registered protocol. MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Embase were searched using the key words maternal care, quality of care, ante natal care, emergency obstetric and neonatal care (EmONC) and child care. Of 4535 records retrieved, only eight papers met the inclusion criteria. Primary outcome of interest was quality of MCH disaggregated into structural quality, process quality and outcomes. Risk of bias across studies was assessed through a customized quality checklist. There were four controlled before after intervention studies, three cluster randomized controlled trials and one case control with post-intervention comparison of P4P programs for MCH care in Burundi, Democratic Republic of Congo, Egypt, the Philippines, and Rwanda. There is some evidence of positive effect of P4P only on process quality of MCH. The effect of P4P on delivery, EmONC, post natal care and under-five child care were not evaluated in these studies. There is weak evidence for P4P's positive effect on maternal and neonatal health outcomes and out-of-pocket expenses. P4P program had a few negative effects on structural quality. P4P is effective to improve process quality of ante natal care. However, further research is needed to understand P4P's impact on MCH and their causal pathways in LMICs. PROSPERO registration number CRD42014013077 . |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 22 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 States | 8 | 36% |
| Canada | 3 | 14% |
| Mexico | 1 | 5% |
| Chile | 1 | 5% |
| France | 1 | 5% |
| Senegal | 1 | 5% |
| India | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 6 | 27% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 15 | 68% |
| Scientists | 3 | 14% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 14% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 5% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 329 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 328 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 88 | 27% |
| Researcher | 48 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 41 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 16 | 5% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 13 | 4% |
| Other | 39 | 12% |
| Unknown | 84 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 63 | 19% |
| Social Sciences | 52 | 16% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 41 | 12% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 24 | 7% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 11 | 3% |
| Other | 39 | 12% |
| Unknown | 99 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 25. 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 07 February 2023.
All research outputs
#1,525,229
of 25,331,507 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#1,706
of 16,989 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,101
of 307,541 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#35
of 207 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,331,507 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 16,989 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 well, scoring higher than 89% 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 307,541 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 207 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.