↓ Skip to main content

Treatment outcomes of tuberculosis patients in nigist Eleni Mohammed general hospital, hosanna, southern nations, nationalities and peoples region, Ethiopia: a five year (June 2009 to August 2014…

Overview of attention for article published in Archives of Public Health, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
72 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
Treatment outcomes of tuberculosis patients in nigist Eleni Mohammed general hospital, hosanna, southern nations, nationalities and peoples region, Ethiopia: a five year (June 2009 to August 2014) retrospective study
Published in
Archives of Public Health, April 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13690-017-0184-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tigist Mohammed, Kidist Daniel, Degefa Helamo, Taye Leta

Abstract

Tuberculosis remains to be a major public health problem among under developed world due to delay in detection and treatment of patients with active TB. In Ethiopia, tuberculosis has been recognized as a major public health problem for more than fifty years. The main objective of this study was to determine treatment outcomes and associated factors among TB patients attending Nigist Eleni Mohammed General Hospital, Hosanna, SNNPR, Ethiopia. A five years medical records on treatment outcomes of tuberculosis was reviewed by using a retrospective study design. A total of 768 tuberculosis patients' cards registered in TB unit register from June 2009 to August 2014 were reviewed. Data was coded, cleaned and entered into a computer data base by using EPI Info version 3.5.3 and then analysed by using Spss version 20.0 Descriptive summary values such as frequency and percentage was used to describe the study variable. Moreover, bivariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis with a confidence level of 95% was performed in order to determine the final predictors of the outcome variable. Association of age, sex, residence, HIV status of the patient and TB type/category was assessed with the TB treatment outcome through bivariate analysis. And residence, TB category and HIV status were found significantly associated with the treatment outcomes in bivariate analysis. Finally, the forward addition model was used for the multivariate analysis, and residence, TB category and HIV status of TB patient were entered into the final model to obtain an adjusted odds ratio (AOR). Out of 768 TB patients who were registered at the hospital during the study period, 249 (32.4%) completed the treatment, 84 (10.9%) cured, 11 (1.4%) defaulted, 397 (51.7%) were transferred out to other health facility, 23 (2.9%) died and 4 (0.5%) failed the treatment regimen. In this study, the overall treatment success of TB was 333 (43.3%) as compared to their counterparts, 435 (56.7%). Patients who presented pulmonary TB + ve were more likely to develop risk of poor treatment outcomes as compared to the patients with extra pulmonary TB and pulmonary TB-ve (AOR = 1.915,95% CI;1.213,3.028). The proportion of TB HIV co-infection was16.4%, and HIV + ve TB patients were more likely to develop risk of poor treatment outcomes as compared to their counterparts (AOR = 0.796, 95% CI;0.512,1.236). From this study, it was generally observed that the rate of defaulting was very low in the hospital. On the other hand, it was observed that the rate of transfer out of patients from the hospital to other health care facilities was very high during the study period. Furthermore, it was observed that patients who came from urban area were less likely to develop risk of poor treatment outcomes as compared to patients who reside in the rural areas.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 72 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 72 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 21%
Lecturer 6 8%
Researcher 5 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 7%
Student > Bachelor 4 6%
Other 6 8%
Unknown 31 43%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 11%
Social Sciences 6 8%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Other 8 11%
Unknown 32 44%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 05 April 2017.
All research outputs
#17,289,387
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Archives of Public Health
#774
of 1,144 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#206,651
of 323,671 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Archives of Public Health
#11
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,144 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% 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 323,671 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.