↓ Skip to main content

Evaluation of the operational challenges in implementing reactive screen-and-treat and implications of reactive case detection strategies for malaria elimination in a region of low transmission in…

Overview of attention for article published in Malaria Journal, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
35 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
126 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
Evaluation of the operational challenges in implementing reactive screen-and-treat and implications of reactive case detection strategies for malaria elimination in a region of low transmission in southern Zambia
Published in
Malaria Journal, August 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12936-016-1460-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kelly M. Searle, Harry Hamapumbu, Jailos Lubinda, Timothy M. Shields, Jessie Pinchoff, Tamaki Kobayashi, Jennifer C. Stevenson, Daniel J. Bridges, David A. Larsen, Philip E. Thuma, William J. Moss, for the Southern Africa International Centers of Excellence for Malaria Research

Abstract

As malaria transmission declines in many regions of sub-Saharan Africa, interventions to identify the asymptomatic reservoir are being deployed with the goals of improving surveillance and interrupting transmission. Reactive case detection strategies, in which individuals with clinical malaria are followed up at their home and household residents and neighbours are screened and treated for malaria, are increasingly used as part of malaria elimination programmes. A reactive screen-and-treat programme was implemented by the National Malaria Control Centre in Southern Province, Zambia, in which individuals residing within 140 m of an index case were screened with a malaria rapid diagnostic test (RDT) and treated if positive. The operational challenges during the early stages of implementing this reactive screen-and-treat programme in the catchment area of Macha Hospital in Southern Province, Zambia were assessed using rural health centre records, ground truth evaluation of community health worker performance, and data from serial cross-sectional surveys. The proportion of individuals infected with Plasmodium falciparum who were identified and treated was estimated by simulating reactive screen-and-treat and focal drug administration cascades. Within the 1st year of implementation, community health workers followed up 32 % of eligible index cases. When index cases were followed up, 66 % of residents were at home in the index households and 58 % in neighbouring households. Forty-one neighbouring households of 26 index households were screened, but only 13 (32 %) were within the 140-m screening radius. The parasite prevalence by RDT was 22 % in index households and 5 % in neighbouring households. In a simulation model with complete follow-up, 22 % of the total infected population would be detected with reactive screen-and-treat but 57 % with reactive focal drug administration. With limited resources, coverage and diagnostic tools, reactive screen-and-treat will likely not be sufficient to achieve malaria elimination in this setting. However, high coverage with reactive focal drug administration could be efficient at decreasing the reservoir of infection and should be considered as an alternative strategy.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 126 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 126 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 22 17%
Researcher 20 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 7%
Student > Bachelor 6 5%
Other 20 16%
Unknown 39 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 26 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 6%
Social Sciences 7 6%
Immunology and Microbiology 6 5%
Other 25 20%
Unknown 44 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 May 2017.
All research outputs
#14,858,030
of 22,882,389 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
#4,248
of 5,579 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#209,143
of 344,199 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
#104
of 151 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,882,389 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,579 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% 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 344,199 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 151 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.