↓ Skip to main content

Impact of interventions on malaria in internally displaced persons along the China–Myanmar border: 2011–2014

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
34 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
120 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
Impact of interventions on malaria in internally displaced persons along the China–Myanmar border: 2011–2014
Published in
Malaria Journal, September 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12936-016-1512-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Guofa Zhou, Eugenia Lo, Daibin Zhong, Xiaoming Wang, Ying Wang, Sameer Malla, Ming-chieh Lee, Zhaoqing Yang, Liwang Cui, Guiyun Yan

Abstract

Internally displaced persons (IDP) represent vulnerable populations whose public health conditions merit special attention. In the China-Myanmar border area, human movement and resettlements of IDP can influence malaria transmission. Comparison of disease incidence and vector densities between IDP camps and surrounding local villages allows for better understanding of current epidemiology and to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions in the region. Malaria and vector surveillance was conducted in three IDP camps and three local villages neighbouring the camps along the China-Myanmar border in Myanmar. Clinical malaria cases were collected from seven hospitals/clinics from April 2011 to December 2014. Malaria vector population dynamics were monitored using CDC light traps. The use of malaria preventive measures and information on aid agencies and their activities was obtained through questionnaire surveys. Malaria was confirmed in 1832 patients. Of these cases, 85.4 % were Plasmodium vivax and 11.4 % were Plasmodium falciparum malaria. Annual malaria incidence rates were 38.8 and 127.0 cases/1000 person year in IDP camps and local villages, respectively. Older children of 5-14 years had the highest incidence rate in the camps regardless of gender, while male adults had significantly higher incidence rates than females in local villages and females child-bearing age had significantly lower risk to malaria in IDP camps compare to local villages. Seasonal malaria outbreaks were observed both in the IDP camps and in the local villages from May to August 2013. The proportion of P. vivax remained unchanged in local villages but increased by approximately tenfold in IDP camps from 2011 to 2014. Anopheles vector density was tenfold higher in local villages compared to IDP camps (2.0:0.2 females/trap/night). Over 99 % of households in both communities owned bed nets. While long-lasting insecticidal nets accounted for 61 % of nets used in IDPs, nearly all residents of local villages owned regular nets without insecticide-impregnation. There were more active aid agencies in the camps than in local villages. Malaria in IDP camps was significantly lower than the surrounding villages through effective control management. The observation of P. vivax outbreaks in the study area highlights the need for increased control efforts. Expansion of malaria intervention strategies in IDP camps to local surrounding villages is critical to malaria control in the border area.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 120 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 119 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 25 21%
Student > Master 20 17%
Student > Bachelor 9 8%
Lecturer 7 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 6%
Other 20 17%
Unknown 32 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 24 20%
Social Sciences 16 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 6%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 5 4%
Other 21 18%
Unknown 39 33%

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 22 September 2016.
All research outputs
#4,250,239
of 8,418,826 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
#1,944
of 2,960 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#119,566
of 234,032 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
#74
of 110 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,418,826 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,960 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% 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 234,032 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 110 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.