| Title |
Gender-based distributional skewness of the United Republic of Tanzania’s health workforce cadres: a cross-sectional health facility survey
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Human Resources for Health, June 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1478-4491-11-28 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Amon Exavery, Angelina M Lutambi, Neema Wilson, Godfrey M Mubyazi, Senga Pemba, Godfrey Mbaruku |
| Abstract |
While severe shortages, inadequate skills and a geographical imbalance of health personnel have been consistently documented over the years as long term critical challenges in the health sector of the United Republic of Tanzania, there is limited evidence on the gender-based distribution of the health workforce and its likely implications. Extant evidence shows that some people may not seek healthcare unless they have access to a provider of their gender. This paper, therefore, assesses the gender-based distribution of the United Republic of Tanzania's health workforce cadres. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Rwanda | 1 | 33% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 33% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 110 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Tanzania, United Republic of | 3 | 3% |
| Portugal | 1 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 103 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 18 | 16% |
| Researcher | 15 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 15 | 14% |
| Other | 9 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 6% |
| Other | 31 | 28% |
| Unknown | 15 | 14% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 28 | 25% |
| Social Sciences | 24 | 22% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 14 | 13% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 5 | 5% |
| Computer Science | 5 | 5% |
| Other | 16 | 15% |
| Unknown | 18 | 16% |
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 28 June 2013.
All research outputs
#16,047,334
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Human Resources for Health
#1,068
of 1,261 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#121,452
of 209,141 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Human Resources for Health
#15
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
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 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 209,141 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 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.