↓ Skip to main content

An analytical perspective of Global health initiatives in Tanzania and Zambia

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 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
An analytical perspective of Global health initiatives in Tanzania and Zambia
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, July 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12913-016-1449-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Aziza Mwisongo, Alice Ntamwishimiro Soumare, Juliet Nabyonga-Orem

Abstract

A number of Global health initiatives (GHIs) have been created to support low and middle income countries. Their support has been of different forms. The African Region has benefitted immensely from GHIs and continues to register an increase in health partnerships and initiatives. However, information on the functioning and operationalisation of GHIs in the countries is limited. This study involved two country case studies, one in Tanzania and the other one in Zambia. Data were collected using a semi-structured questionnaire. The aims were to understand and profile the GHIs supporting health development and to assess their governance and alignment with country priorities, harmonisation and alignment of their interventions and efforts, and contribution towards health systems strengthening. The respondents included senior officers from health stakeholder agencies at the national and sub-national levels. The qualitative data were analysed using thematic content analysis in MAXQDA software. Health systems in both Tanzania and Zambia are decentralised. They have benefitted from GHI support in fighting the common health problems of HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria and vaccine-preventable diseases. In both countries, no GHI adequately made use of the existing Sector-wide Approach (SWAp) mechanisms but they largely operate through their unique structures and committees. GHI efforts to improve general health governance have not been matched with similar efforts from the countries. Their support to health system strengthening has not been comprehensive but has involved the selection of a few areas some of which were disease-focused. On the positive side, however, in both Tanzania and Zambia improved alignment with the countries' priorities is noted in that most of the proposals submitted to the GHIs refer to the priorities, objectives and strategies in the national health development plans and, GHIs depend on the national health information systems. GHIs are important funders of health in low and middle income countries. However, there is a need for the countries to take a proactive role in improving the governance, coordination and planning of the GHIs that they benefit from. This will also maximise the return on investment for the GHIs.

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 156 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 155 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 40 26%
Researcher 20 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 10%
Student > Bachelor 14 9%
Student > Postgraduate 6 4%
Other 20 13%
Unknown 41 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 38 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 21 13%
Social Sciences 18 12%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 6 4%
Psychology 4 3%
Other 21 13%
Unknown 48 31%
Attention Score in Context

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 23 July 2016.
All research outputs
#14,268,650
of 22,881,154 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#5,080
of 7,651 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#211,924
of 363,150 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#130
of 200 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,881,154 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,651 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% 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 363,150 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 200 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.