↓ Skip to main content

The impact of facility audits, evaluation reports and incentives on motivation and supply management among family planning service providers: an interventional study in two districts in Maputo…

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (57th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
29 Mendeley
Title
The impact of facility audits, evaluation reports and incentives on motivation and supply management among family planning service providers: an interventional study in two districts in Maputo Province, Mozambique
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, May 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12913-017-2222-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Heleen Vermandere, Anna Galle, Sally Griffin, Málica de Melo, Lino Machaieie, Dirk Van Braeckel, Olivier Degomme

Abstract

Good progress is being made towards universal access to contraceptives, however stock-outs still jeopardize progress. A seldom considered but important building block in optimizing supply management is the degree to which health workers feel motivated and responsible for monitoring supply. We explored how and to what extent motivation can be improved, and the impact this can have on avoiding stock-outs. Fifteen health facilities in Maputo Province, Mozambique, were divided into 3 groups (2 intervention groups and 1 control), and 10 monthly audits were implemented in each of these 15 facilities to collect data through examination of stock cards and stock-counts of 6 contraceptives. Based on these audits, the 2 intervention groups received a monthly evaluation report reflecting the quality of their supply management. One of these 2 groups was also awarded material incentives conditional on their performance. A Wilcoxon-Mann Whitney test was used to detect differences between the groups in the average number of stocked-out centres, while changes over time were verified through applying a Friedman test. Additionally, staff motivation was measured through interviewing health care providers of all centres at baseline, and after 5 and 10 months. To detect differences between the groups and changes over time, a Kruskal Wallis and a Wilcoxon signed-rank test were applied, respectively. Motivation reported by providers (n = 55, n = 40 and n = 39 at baseline, 1st and 2nd follow-up respectively) was high in all groups, during all rounds, and did not change over time. Facilities in the intervention groups had better supply management results (including less stock-outs) during the entire intervention period compared with those in the control group, but the difference was only significant for the group receiving both material incentives and a monthly evaluation. However, our data also suggest that supply management also improved in control facilities, receiving only a monthly audit. During this study, more stock-outs occurred for family planning methods with lower demand, but the number of stock-outs per family planning method in the intervention groups was only significantly lower, compared with the control group, for female condoms. While a rise in motivation was not measurable, stock management was enhanced possibly as a result of the monthly audits. This activity was primarily for data collection, but was described as motivating and supportive, indicating the importance of feedback on health workers' accomplishments. More research is needed to quantify the additional impact of the interventions (distribution of evaluation reports and material incentives) on staff motivation and supply management. Special attention should be paid to supply management of less frequently used contraceptive methods.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 29 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 28%
Student > Master 5 17%
Unspecified 4 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 10%
Other 5 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 34%
Unspecified 5 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 17%
Social Sciences 5 17%
Philosophy 1 3%
Other 3 10%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 01 January 2018.
All research outputs
#6,632,190
of 12,367,541 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#2,215
of 4,055 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#112,777
of 272,049 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#60
of 109 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,367,541 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,055 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.3. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% 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 272,049 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 57% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 109 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.