↓ Skip to main content

To what extent do site-based training, mentoring, and operational research improve district health system management and leadership in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review protocol

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
155 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
To what extent do site-based training, mentoring, and operational research improve district health system management and leadership in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review protocol
Published in
Systematic Reviews, April 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13643-016-0239-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Zakaria Belrhiti, Andrew Booth, Bruno Marchal, Roosmarijn Verstraeten

Abstract

District health managers play a key role in the effectiveness of decentralized health systems in low- and middle-income countries. Inadequate management and leadership skills often hamper their ability to improve quality of care and effectiveness of health service delivery. Nevertheless, significant investments have been made in capacity-building programmes based on site-based training, mentoring, and operational research. This systematic review aims to review the effectiveness of site-based training, mentoring, and operational research (or action research) on the improvement of district health system management and leadership. Our secondary objectives are to assess whether variations in composition or intensity of the intervention influence its effectiveness and to identify enabling and constraining contexts and underlying mechanisms. We will search the following databases: MEDLINE, PsycInfo, Cochrane Library, CRD database (DARE), Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) group, ISI Web of Science, Health Evidence.org, PDQ-Evidence, ERIC, EMBASE, and TRIP. Complementary search will be performed (hand-searching journals and citation and reference tracking). Studies that meet the following PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome) criteria will be included: P: professionals working at district health management level; I: site-based training with or without mentoring, or operational research; C: normal institutional arrangements; and O: district health management functions. We will include cluster randomized controlled trials, controlled before-and-after studies, interrupted time series analysis, quasi-experimental designs, and cohort and longitudinal studies. Qualitative research will be included to contextualize findings and identify barriers and facilitators. Primary outcomes that will be reported are district health management and leadership functions. We will assess risk of bias with the Cochrane Collaboration's tools for randomized controlled trials (RCT) and non RCT studies and Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklists for qualitative studies. We will assess strength of recommendations with the GRADE tool for quantitative studies, and the CERQual approach for qualitative studies. Synthesis of quantitative studies will be performed through meta-analysis when appropriate. Best fit framework synthesis will be used to synthesize qualitative studies. This protocol paper describes a systematic review assessing the effectiveness of site-based training (with or without mentoring programmes or operational research) on the improvement of district health system management and leadership. PROSPERO CRD42015032351.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 155 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Unknown 153 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 29 19%
Researcher 25 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 13 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 6%
Other 9 6%
Other 34 22%
Unknown 35 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 32 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 22 14%
Social Sciences 18 12%
Engineering 6 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 5 3%
Other 32 21%
Unknown 40 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 December 2022.
All research outputs
#4,670,622
of 23,509,982 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#925
of 2,043 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#71,884
of 300,559 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#18
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,509,982 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,043 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% 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 300,559 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.