Title |
Comparing a paper based monitoring and evaluation system to a mHealth system to support the national community health worker programme, South Africa: an evaluation
|
---|---|
Published in |
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, August 2014
|
DOI | 10.1186/1472-6947-14-69 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Sunisha Neupane, Willem Odendaal, Irwin Friedman, Waasila Jassat, Helen Schneider, Tanya Doherty |
Abstract |
In an attempt to address a complex disease burden, including improving progress towards MDGs 4 and 5, South Africa recently introduced a re-engineered Primary Health Care (PHC) strategy, which has led to the development of a national community health worker (CHW) programme. The present study explored the development of a cell phone-based and paper-based monitoring and evaluation (M&E) system to support the work of the CHWs. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
India | 1 | 25% |
South Africa | 1 | 25% |
United Kingdom | 1 | 25% |
Unknown | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 50% |
Scientists | 1 | 25% |
Members of the public | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 219 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Indonesia | 2 | <1% |
South Africa | 2 | <1% |
United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
Sierra Leone | 1 | <1% |
Canada | 1 | <1% |
United States | 1 | <1% |
Unknown | 211 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Master | 52 | 24% |
Researcher | 29 | 13% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 28 | 13% |
Student > Postgraduate | 18 | 8% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 17 | 8% |
Other | 42 | 19% |
Unknown | 33 | 15% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 45 | 21% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 39 | 18% |
Social Sciences | 27 | 12% |
Computer Science | 24 | 11% |
Environmental Science | 7 | 3% |
Other | 30 | 14% |
Unknown | 47 | 21% |
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 09 September 2014.
All research outputs
#13,411,291
of 22,760,687 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#983
of 1,984 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#109,614
of 230,541 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#17
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,760,687 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,984 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% 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 230,541 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 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.