↓ Skip to main content

A process evaluation of performance-based incentives for village health workers in Kisoro district, Uganda

Overview of attention for article published in Human Resources for Health, April 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
8 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
102 Mendeley
Title
A process evaluation of performance-based incentives for village health workers in Kisoro district, Uganda
Published in
Human Resources for Health, April 2014
DOI 10.1186/1478-4491-12-19
Pubmed ID
Authors

James S Miller, Sam Musominali, Michael Baganizi, Gerald A Paccione

Abstract

Designing effective incentive systems for village health workers (VHWs) represents a longstanding policy issue with substantial impact on the success and sustainability of VHW programs. Using performance-based incentives (PBI) for VHWs is an approach that has been proposed and implemented in some programs, but has not received adequate review and evaluation in the peer-reviewed literature. We conducted a process evaluation examining the use of PBI for VHWs in Kisoro, Uganda. In this system, VHWs are paid based on 20 indicators, divided among routine follow-up visits, health education activities, new patient identifications, sanitation coverage, and uptake of priority health services.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 102 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Indonesia 2 2%
Sierra Leone 1 <1%
Congo, The Democratic Republic of the 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Tanzania, United Republic of 1 <1%
Unknown 96 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 36 35%
Researcher 17 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 13%
Student > Postgraduate 7 7%
Unspecified 6 6%
Other 23 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 40 39%
Social Sciences 16 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 13%
Unspecified 8 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 7 7%
Other 18 18%

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 12 May 2014.
All research outputs
#3,981,192
of 13,469,606 outputs
Outputs from Human Resources for Health
#484
of 732 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#55,595
of 190,261 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Human Resources for Health
#7
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,469,606 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 732 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.3. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% 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 190,261 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 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.