↓ Skip to main content

Community health workers adherence to referral guidelines: evidence from studies introducing RDTs in two malaria transmission settings in Uganda

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

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Readers on

mendeley
150 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 workers adherence to referral guidelines: evidence from studies introducing RDTs in two malaria transmission settings in Uganda
Published in
Malaria Journal, November 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12936-016-1609-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sham Lal, Richard Ndyomugenyi, Lucy Paintain, Neal D. Alexander, Kristian S. Hansen, Pascal Magnussen, Daniel Chandramohan, Siân E. Clarke

Abstract

Many malaria-endemic countries have implemented national community health worker (CHW) programmes to serve remote populations that have poor access to malaria diagnosis and treatment. Despite mounting evidence of CHWs' ability to adhere to malaria rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) and treatment guidelines, there is limited evidence whether CHWs adhere to the referral guidelines and refer severely ill children for further management. In southwest Uganda, this study examined whether CHWs referred children according to training guidelines and described factors associated with adherence to the referral guideline. A secondary analysis was undertaken of data collected during two cluster-randomized trials conducted between January 2010 and July 2011, one in a moderate-to-high malaria transmission setting and the other in a low malaria transmission setting. All CHWs were trained to prescribe artemisinin-based combination therapy (ACT) and recognize symptoms in children that required immediate referral to the nearest health centre. Intervention arm CHWs had additional training on how to conduct an RDT; CHWs in the control arm used a presumptive diagnosis for malaria using clinical signs and symptoms. CHW treatment registers were reviewed to identify children eligible for referral according to training guidelines (temperature of ≥38.5 °C), to assess whether CHWs adhered to the guidelines and referred them. Factors associated with adherence were examined with logistic regression models. CHWs failed to refer 58.8% of children eligible in the moderate-to-high transmission and 31.2% of children in the low transmission setting. CHWs using RDTs adhered to the referral guidelines more frequently than CHWs not using RDTs (moderate-to-high transmission: 50.1 vs 18.0%, p = 0.003; low transmission: 88.5 vs 44.1%, p < 0.001). In both settings, fewer than 20% of eligible children received pre-referral treatment with rectal artesunate. Children who were prescribed ACT were very unlikely to be referred in both settings (97.7 and 73.3% were not referred in the moderate-to-high and low transmission settings, respectively). In the moderate-to-high transmission setting, day and season of visit were also associated with the likelihood of adherence to the referral guidelines, but not in the low transmission setting. CHW adherence to referral guidelines was poor in both transmission settings. However, training CHWs to use RDT improved correct referral of children with a high fever compared to a presumptive diagnosis using sign and symptoms. As many countries scale up CHW programmes, routine monitoring of reported data should be examined carefully to assess whether CHWs adhere to referral guidelines and take remedial actions where required.

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 150 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 150 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 35 23%
Researcher 20 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 7%
Student > Bachelor 10 7%
Student > Postgraduate 9 6%
Other 23 15%
Unknown 42 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 39 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 29 19%
Social Sciences 11 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 4%
Psychology 3 2%
Other 14 9%
Unknown 48 32%
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 December 2016.
All research outputs
#6,986,040
of 22,903,988 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
#2,147
of 5,581 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#126,925
of 415,133 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
#30
of 87 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,903,988 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,581 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% 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 415,133 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 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 87 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.