↓ Skip to main content

Validating a tool to measure auxiliary nurse midwife and nurse motivation in rural Nepal

Overview of attention for article published in Human Resources for Health, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (83rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (67th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
12 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
49 Mendeley
Title
Validating a tool to measure auxiliary nurse midwife and nurse motivation in rural Nepal
Published in
Human Resources for Health, May 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12960-015-0021-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Joanna Morrison, Neha Batura, Rita Thapa, Regina Basnyat, Jolene Skordis-Worrall

Abstract

A global shortage of health workers in rural areas increases the salience of motivating and supporting existing health workers. Understandings of motivation may vary in different settings, and it is important to use measurement methods that are contextually appropriate. We identified a measurement tool, previously used in Kenya, and explored its validity and reliability to measure the motivation of auxiliary nurse midwives (ANM) and staff nurses (SN) in rural Nepal. Qualitative and quantitative methods were used to assess the content validity, the construct validity, the internal consistency and the reliability of the tool. We translated the tool into Nepali and it was administered to 137 ANMs and SNs in three districts. We collected qualitative data from 78 nursing personnel and district- and central-level stakeholders using interviews and focus group discussions. We calculated motivation scores for ANMs and SNs using the quantitative data and conducted statistical tests for validity and reliability. Motivation scores were compared with qualitative data. Descriptive exploratory analysis compared mean motivation scores by ANM and SN sociodemographic characteristics. The concept of self-efficacy was added to the tool before data collection. Motivation was revealed through conscientiousness. Teamwork and the exertion of extra effort were not adequately captured by the tool, but important in illustrating motivation. The statement on punctuality was problematic in quantitative analysis, and attendance was more expressive of motivation. The calculated motivation scores usually reflected ANM and SN interview data, with some variation in other stakeholder responses. The tool scored within acceptable limits in validity and reliability testing and was able to distinguish motivation of nursing personnel with different sociodemographic characteristics. We found that with minor modifications, the tool provided valid and internally consistent measures of motivation among ANMs and SNs in this context. We recommend the use of this tool in similar contexts, with the addition of statements about self-efficacy, teamwork and exertion of extra effort. Absenteeism should replace the punctuality statement, and statements should be worded both positively and negatively to mitigate positive response bias. Collection of qualitative data on motivation creates a more nuanced understanding of quantitative scores.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 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 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 2%
Bangladesh 1 2%
Netherlands 1 2%
Unknown 46 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 17 35%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 16%
Unspecified 6 12%
Researcher 5 10%
Student > Postgraduate 4 8%
Other 9 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 31%
Social Sciences 9 18%
Unspecified 7 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 6%
Other 9 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 24 March 2016.
All research outputs
#1,211,979
of 11,324,871 outputs
Outputs from Human Resources for Health
#155
of 609 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#34,568
of 216,484 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Human Resources for Health
#12
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,324,871 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 609 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its peers.
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 216,484 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 37 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.