↓ Skip to main content

Community health worker knowledge and management of pre-eclampsia in rural Karnataka State, India

Overview of attention for article published in Reproductive Health, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
268 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
Community health worker knowledge and management of pre-eclampsia in rural Karnataka State, India
Published in
Reproductive Health, September 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12978-016-0219-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Umesh Ramadurg, Marianne Vidler, Umesh Charanthimath, Geetanjali Katageri, Mrutyunjaya Bellad, Ashalata Mallapur, Shivaprasad Goudar, Shashidhar Bannale, Chandrashekhar Karadiguddi, Diane Sawchuck, Rahat Qureshi, Peter von Dadelszen, Richard Derman, the Community Level Interventions for Pre-eclampsia (CLIP) India Feasibility Working Group

Abstract

In India, the hypertensive disorders of pregnancy and postpartum haemorrhage are responsible for nearly 40 % of all maternal deaths. Most of these deaths occur in primary health settings which frequently lack essential equipment and medication, are understaffed, and have limited or no access to specialist care. Community health care workers are regarded as essential providers of basic maternity care; and the quality of care they provide is dependent on the level of knowledge and skills they possess. However, there is limited research regarding their ability to manage pregnancy complications. This study aims to describe the current state of knowledge regarding pre-eclampsia and eclampsia among community health care workers (auxiliary nurse midwives, accredited social health activists, staff nurses) in northern Karnataka, India. Furthermore, this study describes the treatment approaches used by various cadres of community health workers for these conditions. The findings of this study can help plan focussed training sessions to build upon their strengths and to address the identified gaps. Data were collected as part of a larger study aimed at assessing the feasibility of community-based treatment for pre-eclampsia. Eight focus group discussions were conducted in 2012-2013 in northern Karnataka State: four with staff nurses and auxiliary nurse midwives and four with accredited social health activists. In addition, twelve auxiliary nurse midwives and staff nurses completed questionnaires to explore their competence and self-efficacy in managing pre-eclampsia. Qualitative data were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and translated for thematic analysis using NVivo 10. Community health workers described their understanding of the origins of hypertension and seizures in pregnancy. Psychological explanations of hypertension were most commonly reported: stress, tension, and fear. The most common explanation for eclampsia was not receiving a tetanus vaccination. Despite some common misperceptions regarding aetiology, these community health workers demonstrated a good grasp of the potential consequences of hypertension in pregnancy. According to auxiliary nurse midwives and staff nurses, if hypertension was detected they encouraged rest, decreased salt intake, iron supplementation and tetanus vaccination. In addition, some staff nurses administered antihypertensives, MgSO4, or other anticonvulsants. All auxiliary nurse midwives had some awareness of MgSO4, but none had administered it themselves. This study showed that knowledge regarding the aetiology of pre-eclampsia was limited. Nevertheless, their basic knowledge and skills could be strengthened to more effectively manage the hypertensive disorders of pregnancy in their communities. NCT01911494.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 268 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 268 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 42 16%
Researcher 29 11%
Student > Bachelor 26 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 25 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 20 7%
Other 48 18%
Unknown 78 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 60 22%
Medicine and Dentistry 57 21%
Social Sciences 13 5%
Psychology 13 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 2%
Other 29 11%
Unknown 91 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 May 2017.
All research outputs
#14,336,458
of 24,677,985 outputs
Outputs from Reproductive Health
#1,018
of 1,518 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#172,034
of 328,854 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Reproductive Health
#28
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,677,985 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,518 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.8. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% 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 328,854 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.