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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Adherence to malaria diagnosis and treatment guidelines among healthcare workers in Ogun State, Nigeria
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Public Health, August 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12889-016-3495-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Oluyomi F. Bamiselu, IkeOluwapo Ajayi, Olufunmilayo Fawole, David Dairo, Olufemi Ajumobi, Abisola Oladimeji, Yoon Steven |
| Abstract |
Malaria case management remains a vital component of malaria control strategies. Despite the introduction of national malaria treatment guidelines and scale-up of malaria control interventions in Nigeria, anecdotal evidence shows some deviations from the guidelines in malaria case management. This study assessed factors influencing adherence to malaria diagnosis and treatment guidelines among healthcare workers in public and private sectors in Ogun State, Nigeria. A comparative cross-sectional study was carried out among 432 (216 public and 216 private) healthcare workers selected from nine Local Government Areas using a multistage sampling technique. A pre-tested interviewer administered questionnaire was used to collect information on availability and use of malaria Rapid Diagnostic Test (mRDT) and artemisinin combination therapy (ACT), for management of uncomplicated malaria. Adherence was defined as when choice of antimalarials for parasitological confirmed malaria cases was restricted to recommended antimalarial medicines. Association between adherence and independent variables were tested using Chi-square at 5 % level of significance. Malaria RDT was available in 81.9 % of the public health facilities and 19.4 % of the private health facilities (p = 0.001). Its use was higher among public healthcare workers (85.2 %) compared to 32.9 % in private facilities (p = 0.000). Presumptive diagnosis of malaria was higher among private healthcare workers (94.9 %) compared to 22.7 % public facilities (p = <0.0001). The main reason for non-usage of mRDT among private healthcare workers was its perceived unreliability of mRDT (40.9 %). Monotherapy including artesunate (58.3 % vs 12.5 %), amodiaquine (38.9 % vs 8.3 %) and chloroquine (26.4 % vs 4.2 %) were significantly more available in private than public health facilities, respectively. Adherence to guidelines was significantly higher among public healthcare workers (60.6 %) compared to those in private facilities (27.3 %). Availability of antimalarial medicine was the main factor that influenced treatment prescription in both healthcare settings (p = 0.27). However, drug promotion by manufactures (45.8 %) has a major influence on private healthcare workers' prescription practice. The findings of this study demonstrate significant difference between public and private healthcare workers on adherence to national malaria diagnosis and treatment guidelines. Interventions to improve private sector engagement in implementation of the guidelines, training and supply of recommended antimalarial medicines should be intensified. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 272 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 272 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 60 | 22% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 30 | 11% |
| Researcher | 25 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 18 | 7% |
| Lecturer | 15 | 6% |
| Other | 43 | 16% |
| Unknown | 81 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 86 | 32% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 37 | 14% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 17 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 7 | 3% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 2% |
| Other | 25 | 9% |
| Unknown | 94 | 35% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 20 August 2016.
All research outputs
#18,467,727
of 22,883,326 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#12,905
of 14,924 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#262,949
of 343,547 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#357
of 404 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,883,326 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,924 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.9. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% 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 343,547 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 404 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.