↓ Skip to main content

Identifying characteristics associated with performing recommended practices in maternal and newborn care among health facilities in Rwanda: a cross-sectional study

Overview of attention for article published in Human Resources for Health, July 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (58th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
74 Mendeley
Title
Identifying characteristics associated with performing recommended practices in maternal and newborn care among health facilities in Rwanda: a cross-sectional study
Published in
Human Resources for Health, July 2012
DOI 10.1186/1478-4491-10-13
Pubmed ID
Authors

Heather L Sipsma, Leslie A Curry, Jean-Baptiste Kakoma, Erika L Linnander, Elizabeth H Bradley

Abstract

Although rates of maternal and neonatal mortality have decreased in many countries over the last two decades, they remain unacceptably high, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa. Nevertheless, we know little about the quality of facility-based maternal and newborn care in low-income countries and little about the association between quality of care and health worker training, supervision, and incentives in these settings. We therefore sought to examine the quality of facility-based maternal and newborn health care by describing the implementation of recommended practices for maternal and newborn care among health care facilities. We also aimed to determine whether increased training, supervision, and incentives for health workers were associated with implementing these recommended practices. We chose to study these aims in the Republic of Rwanda, where rates of maternal and newborn mortality are high and where substantial attention is currently focused on strengthening health workforce capacity and quality.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 74 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 1%
Burundi 1 1%
Unknown 72 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 19 26%
Researcher 13 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 12%
Other 6 8%
Other 17 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 39 53%
Social Sciences 12 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 4%
Other 7 9%

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 17 July 2012.
All research outputs
#3,603,712
of 12,440,173 outputs
Outputs from Human Resources for Health
#442
of 665 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#34,704
of 119,818 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Human Resources for Health
#4
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,440,173 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 665 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.8. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% 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 119,818 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 58% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 6 of them.