↓ Skip to main content

A systematic mapping of funders of maternal health intervention research 2000-2012

Overview of attention for article published in Globalization and Health, October 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
75 Mendeley
Title
A systematic mapping of funders of maternal health intervention research 2000-2012
Published in
Globalization and Health, October 2014
DOI 10.1186/s12992-014-0072-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Katharine Footman, Matthew Chersich, Duane Blaauw, Oona MR Campbell, Ashar Dhana, Josephine Kavanagh, Mari Dumbaugh, Siphiwe Thwala, Leon Bijlmakers, Emily Vargas, Elinor Kern, Francisco Becerra, Loveday Penn-Kekana

Abstract

BackgroundThe priorities of research funding bodies govern the research agenda, which has important implications for the provision of evidence to inform policy. This study examines the research funding landscape for maternal health interventions in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).MethodsThis review draws on a database of 2340 academic papers collected through a large-scale systematic mapping of research on maternal health interventions in LMICs published from 2000¿2012. The names of funders acknowledged on each paper were extracted and categorised into groups. It was noted whether support took a specific form, such as staff fellowships or drugs. Variations between funder types across regions and topics of research were assessed.ResultsFunding sources were only reported in 1572 (67%) of articles reviewed. A high number of different funders (685) were acknowledged, but only a few dominated funding of published research. Bilateral funders, national research agencies and private foundations were most prominent, while private companies were most commonly acknowledged for support `in kind¿. The intervention topics and geographic regions of research funded by the various funder types had much in common, with HIV being the most common topic and sub-Saharan Africa being the most common region for all types of funder. Publication outputs rose substantially for several funder types over the period, with the largest increase among bilateral funders.ConclusionsA considerable number of organisations provide funding for maternal health research, but a handful account for most funding acknowledgements. Broadly speaking, these organisations address similar topics and regions. This suggests little coordination between funding agencies, risking duplication and neglect of some areas of maternal health research, and limiting the ability of organisations to develop the specialised skills required for systematically addressing a research topic. Greater transparency in reporting of funding is required, as the role of funders in the research process is often unclear.

X Demographics

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.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 75 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Ethiopia 1 1%
Unknown 74 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 15 20%
Student > Master 13 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 16%
Student > Postgraduate 5 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 5%
Other 13 17%
Unknown 13 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 28%
Social Sciences 13 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 12%
Engineering 4 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 4%
Other 9 12%
Unknown 16 21%
Attention Score in Context

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 12 May 2022.
All research outputs
#12,614,930
of 22,772,779 outputs
Outputs from Globalization and Health
#830
of 1,103 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#114,438
of 260,659 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Globalization and Health
#13
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,772,779 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,103 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.9. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% 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 260,659 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 55% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.