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 |
Challenges to fair decision-making processes in the context of health care services: a qualitative assessment from Tanzania
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal for Equity in Health, June 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1475-9276-11-30 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Elizabeth H Shayo, Ole F Norheim, Leonard E G Mboera, Jens Byskov, Stephen Maluka, Peter Kamuzora, Astrid Blystad |
| Abstract |
Fair processes in decision making need the involvement of stakeholders who can discuss issues and reach an agreement based on reasons that are justifiable and appropriate in meeting people's needs. In Tanzania, the policy of decentralization and the health sector reform place an emphasis on community participation in making decisions in health care. However, aspects that can influence an individual's opportunity to be listened to and to contribute to discussion have been researched to a very limited extent in low-income settings. The objective of this study was to explore challenges to fair decision-making processes in health care services with a special focus on the potential influence of gender, wealth, ethnicity and education. We draw on the principle of fairness as outlined in the deliberative democratic theory. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 149 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Indonesia | 1 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Kenya | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 145 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 27 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 25 | 17% |
| Researcher | 19 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 17 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 8 | 5% |
| Other | 22 | 15% |
| Unknown | 31 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 32 | 21% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 25 | 17% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 19 | 13% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 14 | 9% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 4 | 3% |
| Other | 19 | 13% |
| Unknown | 36 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 01 January 2014.
All research outputs
#7,960,052
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from International Journal for Equity in Health
#1,250
of 2,222 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#54,825
of 180,772 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal for Equity in Health
#5
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,222 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.4. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% 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 180,772 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 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.