↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of the capacity between public and private health facilities to manage under-five children with febrile illnesses in Uganda

Overview of attention for article published in Malaria Journal, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
3 X users

Readers on

mendeley
74 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
Comparison of the capacity between public and private health facilities to manage under-five children with febrile illnesses in Uganda
Published in
Malaria Journal, May 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12936-017-1842-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Esther Buregyeya, Elizeus Rutebemberwa, Phillip LaRussa, Sham Lal, Sîan E. Clarke, Kristian S. Hansen, Pascal Magnussen, Anthony K. Mbonye

Abstract

Public health facilities are usually the first to receive interventions compared to private facilities, yet majority of health seeking care is first done with the latter. This study compared the capacity to manage acute febrile illnesses in children below 5 years in private vs public health facilities in order to design interventions to improve quality of care. A survey was conducted within 57 geographical areas (parishes), from August to October 2014 in Mukono district, central Uganda. The survey comprised both facility and health worker assessment. Data were collected on drug stocks, availability of treatment guidelines, diagnostic equipment, and knowledge in management of malaria, pneumonia and diarrhoea, using a structured questionnaire. A total of 53 public and 241 private health facilities participated in the study. While similar proportions of private and public health facilities stocked Coartem, the first-line anti-malarial drug, (98 vs 95%, p = 0.22), significantly more private than public health facilities stocked quinine (85 vs 53%, p < 0.01). Stocks of obsolete anti-malarial drugs, such as chloroquine, were reported in few public and private facilities (3.7 vs 12.5%, p = 0.06). Stocks of antibiotics-amoxycillin and gentamycin were similar in both sectors (≥90% for amoxicillin; ≥50 for gentamycin). Training in malaria was reported by 65% of public health facilities vs 56% in the private sector, p = 0.25), while, only 21% in the public facility and 12% in the private facilities, p = 0.11, reported receiving training in pneumonia. Only 55% of public facilities had microscopes. Malaria treatment guidelines were significantly lacking in the private sector, p = 0.01. Knowledge about first-line management of uncomplicated malaria, pneumonia and diarrhoea was significantly better in the public facilities compared to the private ones, though still sub-optimal. Deficiencies of equipment, supplies and training exist even in public health facilities. In order to significantly improve the capacity to handle acute febrile illness among children under five, training in proper case management, availability of supplies and diagnostics need to be addressed in both sectors.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 74 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 1 1%
Unknown 73 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 15 20%
Student > Master 9 12%
Student > Postgraduate 5 7%
Student > Bachelor 5 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 5%
Other 12 16%
Unknown 24 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 14%
Social Sciences 4 5%
Engineering 3 4%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 4%
Other 6 8%
Unknown 30 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 24 October 2018.
All research outputs
#7,147,830
of 25,271,884 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
#1,843
of 5,888 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#103,910
of 316,982 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
#49
of 135 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,271,884 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,888 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% 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 316,982 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 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 135 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 62% of its contemporaries.