↓ Skip to main content

Evaluation of a laboratory quality assurance pilot programme for malaria diagnostics in low-transmission areas of Kenya, 2013

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
8 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
51 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
Evaluation of a laboratory quality assurance pilot programme for malaria diagnostics in low-transmission areas of Kenya, 2013
Published in
Malaria Journal, May 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12936-017-1856-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Elizabeth Wanja, Rachel Achilla, Peter Obare, Rose Adeny, Caroline Moseti, Victor Otieno, Collins Morang’a, Ephantus Murigi, John Nyamuni, Derek R. Monthei, Bernhards Ogutu, Ann M. Buff

Abstract

One objective of the Kenya National Malaria Strategy 2009-2017 is scaling access to prompt diagnosis and effective treatment. In 2013, a quality assurance (QA) pilot was implemented to improve accuracy of malaria diagnostics at selected health facilities in low-transmission counties of Kenya. Trends in malaria diagnostic and QA indicator performance during the pilot are described. From June to December 2013, 28 QA officers provided on-the-job training and mentoring for malaria microscopy, malaria rapid diagnostic tests and laboratory QA/quality control (QC) practices over four 1-day visits at 83 health facilities. QA officers observed and recorded laboratory conditions and practices and cross-checked blood slides for malaria parasite presence, and a portion of cross-checked slides were confirmed by reference laboratories. Eighty (96%) facilities completed the pilot. Among 315 personnel at pilot initiation, 13% (n = 40) reported malaria diagnostics training within the previous 12 months. Slide positivity ranged from 3 to 7%. Compared to the reference laboratory, microscopy sensitivity ranged from 53 to 96% and positive predictive value from 39 to 53% for facility staff and from 60 to 96% and 52 to 80%, respectively, for QA officers. Compared to reference, specificity ranged from 88 to 98% and negative predictive value from 98 to 99% for health-facility personnel and from 93 to 99% and 99%, respectively, for QA officers. The kappa value ranged from 0.48-0.66 for facility staff and 0.57-0.84 for QA officers compared to reference. The only significant test performance improvement observed for facility staff was for specificity from 88% (95% CI 85-90%) to 98% (95% CI 97-99%). QA/QC practices, including use of positive-control slides, internal and external slide cross-checking and recording of QA/QC activities, all increased significantly across the pilot (p < 0.001). Reference material availability also increased significantly; availability of six microscopy job aids and seven microscopy standard operating procedures increased by a mean of 32 percentage points (p < 0.001) and 38 percentage points (p < 0.001), respectively. Significant gains were observed in malaria QA/QC practices over the pilot. However, these advances did not translate into improved accuracy of malaria diagnostic performance perhaps because of the limited duration of the QA pilot implementation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 51 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 16 31%
Researcher 9 18%
Student > Bachelor 4 8%
Student > Postgraduate 3 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 4%
Other 4 8%
Unknown 13 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 20%
Immunology and Microbiology 7 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 4%
Other 12 24%
Unknown 12 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 01 May 2018.
All research outputs
#4,043,922
of 22,974,684 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
#981
of 5,588 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#71,603
of 313,664 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
#34
of 137 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,974,684 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,588 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 313,664 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 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 137 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.