↓ Skip to main content

Intestinal parasitic infections and its association with undernutrition and CD4 T cell levels among HIV/AIDS patients on HAART in Butajira, Ethiopia

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Health, Population and Nutrition, May 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
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
36 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
164 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
Intestinal parasitic infections and its association with undernutrition and CD4 T cell levels among HIV/AIDS patients on HAART in Butajira, Ethiopia
Published in
Journal of Health, Population and Nutrition, May 2017
DOI 10.1186/s41043-017-0092-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dereje Gedle, Gemechu Kumera, Tewodros Eshete, Kasahun Ketema, Haweni Adugna, Fetuma Feyera

Abstract

Intestinal parasitic infections and HIV/AIDS have been the major public health problems and remain a vital cause of morbidity and mortality in developing countries. Both problems are linked in a vicious cycle. The magnitude of intestinal parasites was prevalent among people living with HIV/AIDS even in the HAART era. However, the pertinent risk factors associated with intestinal parasites among HIV/AIDS patients were not well investigated in Ethiopia particularly at Butajira town. Therefore, the aim of this study was to determine the prevalence of intestinal parasites and associated risk factors among HIV/AIDS patients on HAART in Butajira, Ethiopia. A cross-sectional study was conducted, and a total of 323 study subjects was involved in the study. A systematic random sampling technique was used to select each participant during data collection. Stool specimen was collected and processed using direct wet mount, formol-ether concentration technique, and modified Ziehl-Neelson staining techniques to identify both common and opportunistic intestinal parasites. Structured questionnaire was used to collect socio-demographic, environmental, clinical, and nutritional data. Both bivariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to assess the association of various explanatory factors on intestinal parasites. P value ≤0.05 at 95% CI was considered statistically significant. The overall prevalence of intestinal parasites was 35.9% (95% CI 31.0-40.9%). Protozoa's (Entanmoeba histolytica/dispar trophozoite, E. histolytica/dispar cyst, Giardia lamblia trophozoite, and G. lamblia cyst), helminths (Tanea species, Ascaris lumbricoides, Strongyloid stercoralis, Hookworm species and H. nana), and opportunistic intestinal parasites (Cryptosporidium parvum, Isospora belli) were observed in 57 (17.1%), 46 (14.4%), and 28 (8.7%) study participants respectively. Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that the presence of animals (AOR 6. 14; 95% CI 3.13, 12.0); using river water (AOR 4.87; 95% CI 1.14, 20.7); undernutrition (AOR 2.59; 95% CI 1.36-4.95); and level of immunosuppression (AOR 4.02; 95% CI 1.78-9.05 and AOR 2.84; 95% CI 1.37-5.89) were significantly associated with intestinal parasites. The prevalence of intestinal parasites found to be higher among HIV/AIDS patients receiving HAART at Butajira Hospital, southern Ethiopia. Presence of animals, using river water, lower CD4 T cell count, and undernutrition were significant factors affecting intestinal parasites. Therefore, consistent detection of intestinal parasites and deworming of patients should be performed as well as improving health education on personal hygiene, avoiding contact with pit or domestic animals, and using safe or treated water. Furthermore, improving nutritional support and household food access are recommended.

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 164 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 164 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 32 20%
Student > Bachelor 16 10%
Student > Postgraduate 11 7%
Researcher 10 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 4%
Other 28 17%
Unknown 60 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 33 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 10%
Immunology and Microbiology 14 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 4%
Other 17 10%
Unknown 66 40%
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 17 May 2017.
All research outputs
#16,584,977
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Health, Population and Nutrition
#366
of 623 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#195,059
of 324,748 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Health, Population and Nutrition
#4
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 623 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 40th percentile – i.e., 40% 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 324,748 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.