↓ 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: a 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 (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
2 blogs
policy
2 policy sources
twitter
72 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
348 Dimensions

Readers on

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

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

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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 72 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 799 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 5 <1%
United States 2 <1%
South Africa 2 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
Kenya 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Other 3 <1%
Unknown 781 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 148 19%
Researcher 115 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 88 11%
Student > Bachelor 52 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 43 5%
Other 161 20%
Unknown 192 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 195 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 104 13%
Social Sciences 94 12%
Psychology 47 6%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 20 3%
Other 116 15%
Unknown 223 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 71. 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 December 2022.
All research outputs
#600,657
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,075
of 11,842 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,980
of 222,883 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#22
of 224 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,842 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 38.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 222,883 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 224 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 90% of its contemporaries.