↓ Skip to main content

Investigating rapid diagnostic testing in Kenya’s health system, 2018–2020: validating non-reporting in routine data using a health facility service assessment survey

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, March 2023
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
16 X users

Readers on

mendeley
19 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
Investigating rapid diagnostic testing in Kenya’s health system, 2018–2020: validating non-reporting in routine data using a health facility service assessment survey
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, March 2023
DOI 10.1186/s12913-023-09296-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Angela K Moturi, Bibian N Robert, Felix Bahati, Peter M Macharia, Emelda A Okiro

Abstract

Understanding the availability of rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) is essential for attaining universal health care and reducing health inequalities. Although routine data helps measure RDT coverage and health access gaps, many healthcare facilities fail to report their monthly diagnostic test data to routine health systems, impacting routine data quality. This study sought to understand whether non-reporting by facilities is due to a lack of diagnostic and/or service provision capacity by triangulating routine and health service assessment survey data in Kenya. Routine facility-level data on RDT administration were sourced from the Kenya health information system for the years 2018-2020. Data on diagnostic capacity (RDT availability) and service provision (screening, diagnosis, and treatment) were obtained from a national health facility assessment conducted in 2018. The two sources were linked and compared obtaining information on 10 RDTs from both sources. The study then assessed reporting in the routine system among facilities with (i) diagnostic capacity only, (ii) both confirmed diagnostic capacity and service provision and (iii) without diagnostic capacity. Analyses were conducted nationally, disaggregated by RDT, facility level and ownership. Twenty-one per cent (2821) of all facilities expected to report routine diagnostic data in Kenya were included in the triangulation. Most (86%) were primary-level facilities under public ownership (70%). Overall, survey response rates on diagnostic capacity were high (> 70%). Malaria and HIV had the highest response rate (> 96%) and the broadest coverage in diagnostic capacity across facilities (> 76%). Reporting among facilities with diagnostic capacity varied by test, with HIV and malaria having the lowest reporting rates, 58% and 52%, respectively, while the rest ranged between 69% and 85%. Among facilities with both service provision and diagnostic capacity, reporting ranged between 52% and 83% across tests. Public and secondary facilities had the highest reporting rates across all tests. A small proportion of health facilities without diagnostic capacity submitted testing reports in 2018, most of which were primary facilities. Non-reporting in routine health systems is not always due to a lack of capacity. Further analyses are required to inform other drivers of non-reporting to ensure reliable routine health data.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 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 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 19 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 2 11%
Researcher 2 11%
Lecturer 1 5%
Unspecified 1 5%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 11 58%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 2 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 5%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 1 5%
Unspecified 1 5%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 12 63%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 13 September 2023.
All research outputs
#2,891,090
of 24,978,429 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#1,229
of 8,465 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#53,938
of 409,266 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#20
of 190 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,978,429 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,465 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 409,266 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 190 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.