↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Barriers and facilitators to the implementation of lay health worker programmes to improve access to maternal and child health: qualitative evidence synthesis

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
2 blogs
policy
3 policy sources
twitter
90 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
255 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
636 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
Title
Barriers and facilitators to the implementation of lay health worker programmes to improve access to maternal and child health: qualitative evidence synthesis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010414.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Glenton, Claire, Colvin, Christopher J, Carlsen, Benedicte, Swartz, Alison, Lewin, Simon, Noyes, Jane, Rashidian, Arash, Claire Glenton, Christopher J Colvin, Benedicte Carlsen, Alison Swartz, Simon Lewin, Jane Noyes, Arash Rashidian, Christopher Colvin

Abstract

Lay health workers (LHWs) perform functions related to healthcare delivery, receive some level of training, but have no formal professional or paraprofessional certificate or tertiary education degree. They provide care for a range of issues, including maternal and child health. For LHW programmes to be effective, we need a better understanding of the factors that influence their success and sustainability. This review addresses these issues through a synthesis of qualitative evidence and was carried out alongside the Cochrane review of the effectiveness of LHWs for maternal and child health.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 90 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 636 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 5 <1%
South Africa 3 <1%
United States 2 <1%
India 2 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Kenya 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
Sierra Leone 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Other 3 <1%
Unknown 616 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 128 20%
Researcher 107 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 81 13%
Student > Bachelor 45 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 39 6%
Other 130 20%
Unknown 106 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 178 28%
Nursing and Health Professions 92 14%
Social Sciences 86 14%
Psychology 38 6%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 14 2%
Other 91 14%
Unknown 137 22%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 86. 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 14 January 2021.
All research outputs
#293,108
of 17,512,897 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#628
of 11,709 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,017
of 177,954 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#9
of 109 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,512,897 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,709 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 177,954 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 109 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.