| Title |
Optimising the performance of frontline implementers engaged in the NTD programme in Nigeria: lessons for strengthening community health systems for universal health coverage
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Human Resources for Health, November 2019
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12960-019-0419-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Akinola Oluwole, Laura Dean, Luret Lar, Kabiru Salami, Okefu Okoko, Sunday Isiyaku, Ruth Dixon, Elizabeth Elhassan, Elena Schmidt, Rachael Thomson, Sally Theobald, Kim Ozano |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 26 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 6 | 23% |
| Ghana | 2 | 8% |
| Nigeria | 2 | 8% |
| United States | 2 | 8% |
| Georgia | 1 | 4% |
| Italy | 1 | 4% |
| Zambia | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 11 | 42% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 14 | 54% |
| Scientists | 9 | 35% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 8% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 143 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 143 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 26 | 18% |
| Student > Bachelor | 14 | 10% |
| Researcher | 11 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 8 | 6% |
| Other | 19 | 13% |
| Unknown | 54 | 38% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 20 | 14% |
| Social Sciences | 15 | 10% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 9 | 6% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 6 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 4% |
| Other | 26 | 18% |
| Unknown | 61 | 43% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 February 2020.
All research outputs
#1,956,856
of 25,387,668 outputs
Outputs from Human Resources for Health
#191
of 1,261 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#42,060
of 378,069 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Human Resources for Health
#9
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,387,668 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,261 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 378,069 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 88% 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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.