↓ Skip to main content

Framework for assessing the capacity of a health ministry to conduct health policy processes—a case study from Tajikistan

Overview of attention for article published in The International Journal of Health Planning and Management, November 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
40 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Framework for assessing the capacity of a health ministry to conduct health policy processes—a case study from Tajikistan
Published in
The International Journal of Health Planning and Management, November 2013
DOI 10.1002/hpm.2222
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tolib N Mirzoev, Andrew Green, Ricky Van Kalliecharan

Abstract

An adequate capacity of ministries of health (MOH) to develop and implement policies is essential. However, no frameworks were found assessing MOH capacity to conduct health policy processes within developing countries. This paper presents a conceptual framework for assessing MOH capacity to conduct policy processes based on a study from Tajikistan, a former Soviet republic where independence highlighted capacity challenges. The data collection for this qualitative study included in-depth interviews, document reviews and observations of policy events. Framework approach for analysis was used. The conceptual framework was informed by existing literature, guided the data collection and analysis, and was subsequently refined following insights from the study. The Tajik MOH capacity, while gradually improving, remains weak. There is poor recognition of wider contextual influences, ineffective leadership and governance as reflected in centralised decision-making, limited use of evidence, inadequate actors' participation and ineffective use of resources to conduct policy processes. However, the question is whether this is a reflection of lack of MOH ability or evidence of constraining environment or both. The conceptual framework identifies five determinants of robust policy processes, each with specific capacity needs: policy context, MOH leadership and governance, involvement of policy actors, the role of evidence and effective resource use for policy processes. Three underlying considerations are important for applying the capacity to policy processes: the need for clear focus, recognition of capacity levels and elements, and both ability and enabling environment. The proposed framework can be used in assessing and strengthening of the capacity of different policy actors. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 3%
Unknown 39 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 18%
Researcher 7 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 15%
Student > Postgraduate 2 5%
Lecturer 1 3%
Other 4 10%
Unknown 13 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 23%
Social Sciences 9 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 10%
Environmental Science 1 3%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 3%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 13 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 01 July 2021.
All research outputs
#7,708,303
of 26,411,386 outputs
Outputs from The International Journal of Health Planning and Management
#275
of 913 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#65,625
of 230,004 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The International Journal of Health Planning and Management
#2
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,411,386 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 913 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% 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 230,004 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 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.