| Title |
Nursing and midwifery regulatory reform in east, central, and southern Africa: a survey of key stakeholders
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Human Resources for Health, June 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1478-4491-11-29 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Carey F McCarthy, Joachim Voss, Marla E Salmon, Jessica M Gross, Maureen A Kelley, Patricia L Riley |
| Abstract |
In sub-Saharan Africa, nurses and midwives provide expanded HIV services previously seen as the sole purview of physicians. Delegation of these functions often occurs informally by shifting or sharing of tasks and responsibilities. Normalizing these arrangements through regulatory and educational reform is crucial for the attainment of global health goals and the protection of practitioners and those whom they serve. Enacting appropriate changes in both regulation and education requires engagement of national regulatory bodies, but also key stakeholders such as government chief nursing officers (CNO), professional associations, and educators. The purpose of this research is to describe the perspectives and engagement of these stakeholders in advancing critical regulatory and educational reform in east, central, and southern Africa (ECSA). |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 33% |
| Rwanda | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 3 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 17% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 86 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 2% |
| Spain | 1 | 1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 82 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 11 | 13% |
| Researcher | 10 | 12% |
| Other | 9 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 6% |
| Other | 18 | 21% |
| Unknown | 24 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 23 | 27% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 20 | 23% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 2% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 2% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 10 | 12% |
| Unknown | 27 | 31% |
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 29 June 2013.
All research outputs
#7,714,912
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Human Resources for Health
#791
of 1,261 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#62,618
of 208,950 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Human Resources for Health
#9
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,261 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.3. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% 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 208,950 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 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.