↓ Skip to main content

Assessing performance enhancing tools: experiences with the open performance review and appraisal system (OPRAS) and expectations towards payment for performance (P4P) in the public health sector in…

Overview of attention for article published in Globalization and Health, January 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
156 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
Assessing performance enhancing tools: experiences with the open performance review and appraisal system (OPRAS) and expectations towards payment for performance (P4P) in the public health sector in Tanzania
Published in
Globalization and Health, January 2012
DOI 10.1186/1744-8603-8-33
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nils Songstad, Ida Lindkvist, Karen Moland, Victor Chimhutu, Astrid Blystad

Abstract

Health workers' motivation is a key determinant of the quality of health services, and poor motivation has been found to be an obstacle to service delivery in many low-income countries. In order to increase the quality of service delivery in the public sector in Tanzania, the Open Performance Review and Appraisal System (OPRAS) has been implemented, and a new results-based payment system, Payment for performance (P4P) is introduced in the health sector. This article addresses health workers' experiences with OPRAS, expectations towards P4P and how lessons learned from OPRAS can assist in the implementation of P4P. The broader aim is to generate knowledge on health workers' motivation in low-income contexts.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 156 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Tanzania, United Republic of 2 1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Qatar 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 151 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 48 31%
Researcher 25 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 13%
Student > Bachelor 11 7%
Student > Postgraduate 8 5%
Other 27 17%
Unknown 17 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 38 24%
Social Sciences 27 17%
Business, Management and Accounting 16 10%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 13 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 7%
Other 32 21%
Unknown 19 12%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 12 October 2012.
All research outputs
#7,206,806
of 12,485,879 outputs
Outputs from Globalization and Health
#549
of 645 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#61,848
of 125,347 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Globalization and Health
#2
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,485,879 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 645 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.5. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% 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 125,347 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.