↓ Skip to main content

Tuberculosis infection prevention and control in rural Papua New Guinea: an evaluation using the infection prevention and control assessment framework

Overview of attention for article published in Antimicrobial Resistance & Infection Control, April 2023
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
37 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
Tuberculosis infection prevention and control in rural Papua New Guinea: an evaluation using the infection prevention and control assessment framework
Published in
Antimicrobial Resistance & Infection Control, April 2023
DOI 10.1186/s13756-023-01237-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gigil Marme, Jerzy Kuzma, Peta-Anne Zimmerman, Neil Harris, Shannon Rutherford

Abstract

Papua New Guinea (PNG) is one of the 14 countries categorised as having a triple burden of tuberculosis (TB), multidrug-resistant TB (MDR TB), and TB-human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) co-infections. TB infection prevention and control (TB-IPC) guidelines were introduced in 2011 by the National Health Department of PNG. This study assesses the implementation of this policy in a sample of district hospitals in two regions of PNG. The implementation of TB-IPC policy was assessed using a survey method based on the World Health Organization (WHO) IPC assessment framework (IPCAF) to implement the WHO's IPC core components. The study included facility assessment at ten district hospitals and validation observations of TB-IPC practices. Overall, implementation of IPC and TB-IPC guidelines was inadequate in participating facilities. Though 80% of facilities had an IPC program, many needed more clearly defined IPC objectives, budget allocation, and yearly work plans. In addition, they did not include senior facility managers in the IPC committee. 80% (n = 8 of 10) of hospitals had no IPC training and education; 90% had no IPC committee to support the IPC team; 70% had no surveillance protocols to monitor infections, and only 20% used multimodal strategies for IPC activities. Similarly, 70% of facilities had a TB-IPC program without a proper budget and did not include facility managers in the TB-IPC team; 80% indicated that patient flow poses a risk of TB transmission; 70% had poor ventilation systems; 90% had inadequate isolation rooms; and though 80% have personal protective equipment available, frequent shortages were reported. The WHO-recommended TB-IPC policy is not effectively implemented in most of the participating district hospitals. Improvements in implementing and disseminating TB-IPC guidelines, monitoring TB-IPC practices, and systematic healthcare worker training are essential to improve TB-IPC guidelines' operationalisation in health settings to reduce TB prevalence in PNG.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 37 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Lecturer 5 14%
Student > Master 3 8%
Student > Bachelor 2 5%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 5%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 5%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 20 54%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 5 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 11%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 20 54%
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 04 May 2023.
All research outputs
#7,513,044
of 24,716,872 outputs
Outputs from Antimicrobial Resistance & Infection Control
#691
of 1,403 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#128,480
of 404,098 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Antimicrobial Resistance & Infection Control
#12
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,716,872 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,403 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% 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 404,098 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 36 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 69% of its contemporaries.