↓ Skip to main content

Evaluating the variation in the projected benefit of community-wide mass treatment for schistosomiasis: Implications for future economic evaluations

Overview of attention for article published in Parasites & Vectors, April 2017
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 (80th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
14 X users

Readers on

mendeley
82 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
Evaluating the variation in the projected benefit of community-wide mass treatment for schistosomiasis: Implications for future economic evaluations
Published in
Parasites & Vectors, April 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13071-017-2141-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hugo C. Turner, James E. Truscott, Alison A. Bettis, Sam H. Farrell, Arminder K. Deol, Jane M. Whitton, Fiona M. Fleming, Roy M. Anderson

Abstract

The majority of schistosomiasis control programmes focus on targeting school-aged children. Expanding the use of community-wide mass treatment to reach more adults is under consideration. However, it should be noted that this would require a further increase in programmatic resources, international aid, and commitment for the provision of praziquantel. Consequently, it is important to understand (i) where a change of strategy would have the greatest benefit, and (ii) how generalisable the conclusions of field trials and analytical studies based on mathematical models investigating the impact of community-wide mass treatment, are to a broad range of settings. In this paper, we employ a previously described deterministic fully age-structured schistosomiasis transmission model and evaluate the benefit of community-wide mass treatment both in terms of controlling morbidity and eliminating transmission for Schistosoma mansoni, across a wide range of epidemiological settings and programmatic scenarios. This included variation in the baseline relative worm pre-control burden in adults, the overall level of transmission in defined settings, choice of effectiveness metric (basing morbidity calculations on prevalence or intensity), the level of school enrolment and treatment compliance. Community-wide mass treatment was found to be more effective for controlling the transmission of schistosome parasites than using a school-based programme only targeting school-aged children. However, in the context of morbidity control, the potential benefit of switching to community-wide mass treatment was highly variable across the different scenarios analysed. In contrast, for areas where the goal is to eliminate transmission, the projected benefit of community-wide mass treatment was more consistent. Whether community-wide mass treatment is appropriate will depend on the local epidemiological setting (i.e. the relative pre-control burden in adults and transmission intensity), and whether the goal is morbidity control or eliminating transmission. This has important implications regarding the generalisability of cost-effectiveness analyses of schistosomiasis interventions. Our results indicate that areas with poor school-enrolment/coverage could benefit more from community-wide treatment of praziquantel and should potentially be prioritised for any change in strategy. This work highlights the importance of not over-generalising conclusions and policy in this area, but of basing decisions on high quality epidemiological data and quantitative analyses of the impact of interventions in a range of settings.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 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 82 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 82 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 17 21%
Student > Bachelor 16 20%
Student > Master 15 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 6%
Other 4 5%
Unknown 18 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 30 37%
Social Sciences 5 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 4%
Other 16 20%
Unknown 22 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 10 January 2018.
All research outputs
#3,329,061
of 23,322,258 outputs
Outputs from Parasites & Vectors
#720
of 5,553 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#62,107
of 311,336 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Parasites & Vectors
#19
of 145 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,322,258 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,553 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 311,336 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 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 145 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.