↓ Skip to main content

Global health initiatives in Africa – governance, priorities, harmonisation and alignment

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, July 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)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
2 policy sources
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
58 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
219 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
Global health initiatives in Africa – governance, priorities, harmonisation and alignment
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, July 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12913-016-1448-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Aziza Mwisongo, Juliet Nabyonga-Orem

Abstract

The advent of global health initiatives (GHIs) has changed the landscape and architecture of health financing in low and middle income countries, particularly in Africa. Over the last decade, the African Region has realised improvements in health outcomes as a result of interventions implemented by both governments and development partners. However, alignment and harmonisation of partnerships and GHIs are still difficult in the African countries with inadequate capacity for their effective coordination. Both published and grey literature was reviewed to understand the governance, priorities, harmonisation and alignment of GHIs in the African Region; to synthesise the knowledge and highlight the persistent challenges; and to identify gaps for future research. GHI governance structures are often separate from those of the countries in which they operate. Their divergent funding channels and modalities may have contributed to the failure of governments to track their resources. There is also evidence that basically, earmarking and donor conditions drive funding allocations regardless of countries' priorities. Although studies cite the lack of harmonisation of GHI priorities with national strategies, evidence shows improvements in that area over time. GHIs have used several strategies and mechanisms to involve the private sector. These have widened the pool of health service policy-makers and providers to include groups such as civil society organisations (CSOs), with both positive and negative implications. GHI strategies such as co-financing by countries as a condition for support have been positive in achieving sustainability of interventions. GHI approaches have not changed substantially over the years but there has been evolution in terms of donor funding and conditions. GHIs still largely operate in a vertical manner, bypassing country systems; they compete for the limited human resources; they influence country policies; and they are not always harmonised with other donors. To maximise returns on GHI support, there is need to ensure that their approaches are more comprehensive as opposed to being selective; to improve GHI country level governance and alignment with countries' changing epidemiologic profiles; and to strengthen their involvement of CSOs.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 219 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 218 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 42 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 25 11%
Researcher 23 11%
Student > Bachelor 20 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 5%
Other 33 15%
Unknown 66 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 47 21%
Medicine and Dentistry 43 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 25 11%
Arts and Humanities 7 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 2%
Other 25 11%
Unknown 68 31%
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 09 February 2024.
All research outputs
#5,207,047
of 25,463,724 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#2,475
of 8,686 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#87,787
of 377,739 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#55
of 198 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,463,724 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,686 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% 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 377,739 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 198 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 72% of its contemporaries.