↓ Skip to main content

Performance of health laboratories in provision of HIV diagnostic and supportive services in selected districts of Tanzania

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
56 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
Performance of health laboratories in provision of HIV diagnostic and supportive services in selected districts of Tanzania
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, January 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12913-017-2030-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Deus S. Ishengoma, Mathias L. Kamugisha, Acleus S. M. Rutta, Gibson B. Kagaruki, Andrew M. Kilale, Amos Kahwa, Erasmus Kamugisha, Vito Baraka, Celine I. Mandara, Godlisten S. Materu, Julius J. Massaga, Stephen M. Magesa, Martha M. Lemnge, Leonard E. G. Mboera

Abstract

Roll-out and implementation of antiretroviral therapy (ART) necessitated many countries in Sub-Saharan Africa to strengthen their national health laboratory systems (NHLSs) to provide high quality HIV diagnostic and supportive services. This study was conducted to assess the performance of health laboratories in provision of HIV diagnostic and supportive services in eight districts (from four regions of Iringa, Mtwara, Tabora and Tanga), after nine years of implementation of HIV/AIDS care and treatment plan in Tanzania. In this cross-sectional study, checklists and observations were utilized to collect information from health facilities (HFs) with care and treatment centres (CTCs) for HIV/AIDS patients; on availability of laboratories, CTCs, laboratory personnel, equipment and reagents. A checklist was also used to collect information on implementation of quality assurance (QA) systems at all levels of the NHLS in the study areas. The four regions had 354 HFs (13 hospitals, 41 Health Centres (HCs) and 300 dispensaries); whereby all hospitals had laboratories and 11 had CTCs while 97.5 and 61.0% of HCs had both laboratories and CTCs, respectively. Of the dispensaries, 36.0 and 15.0% had laboratories and CTCs (mainly in urban areas). Thirty nine HFs (12 hospitals, 21 HCs and six dispensaries) were assessed and 56.4% were located in urban areas. The assessed HFs had 199 laboratory staff of different cadres (laboratory assistants = 35.7%; technicians =32.7%; attendants = 22.6%; and others = 9.1%); with >61% of the staff and 72.3% of the technicians working in urban areas. All laboratories were using rapid diagnostic tests for HIV testing. Over 74% of the laboratories were performing internal quality control and 51.4% were participating in external QA programmes. Regional and district laboratories had all key equipment and harmonization was maintained for Fluorescence-Activated Cell Sorting (FACS) machines. Most of the biochemical (58.0%) and haematological analysers (74.1%) were available in urban areas. Although >81% of the equipment were functional with no mechanical faulty, 62.6% had not been serviced in the past three years. Diagnostic and supportive services for HIV were available in most of the HCs and hospitals while few dispensaries were providing the services. Due to limitations such as shortage of staff, serving of equipment and participation in QA programmes, the NHLS should be strengthened to ensure adequate human resource, implementation of QA and sustainable preventive maintenance services of equipment.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 56 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 56 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 27%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 13%
Student > Bachelor 6 11%
Lecturer 2 4%
Other 6 11%
Unknown 11 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 13%
Social Sciences 5 9%
Immunology and Microbiology 5 9%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 7%
Other 7 13%
Unknown 12 21%
Attention Score in Context

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 27 March 2017.
All research outputs
#13,756,347
of 23,322,258 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#4,746
of 7,806 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#213,035
of 420,842 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#86
of 139 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,322,258 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,806 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.9. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% 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 420,842 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 139 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.