↓ Skip to main content

Completeness of malaria indicator data reporting via the District Health Information Software 2 in Kenya, 2011–2015

Overview of attention for article published in Malaria Journal, August 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 (82nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
3 policy sources
twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
59 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
196 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
Completeness of malaria indicator data reporting via the District Health Information Software 2 in Kenya, 2011–2015
Published in
Malaria Journal, August 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12936-017-1973-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sophie Githinji, Robinson Oyando, Josephine Malinga, Waqo Ejersa, David Soti, Josea Rono, Robert W. Snow, Ann M. Buff, Abdisalan M. Noor

Abstract

Health facility-based data reported through routine health information systems form the primary data source for programmatic monitoring and evaluation in most developing countries. The adoption of District Health Information Software (DHIS2) has contributed to improved availability of routine health facility-based data in many low-income countries. An assessment of malaria indicators data reported by health facilities in Kenya during the first 5 years of implementation of DHIS2, from January 2011 to December 2015, was conducted. Data on 19 malaria indicators reported monthly by health facilities were extracted from the online Kenya DHIS2 database. Completeness of reporting was analysed for each of the 19 malaria indicators and expressed as the percentage of data values actually reported over the expected number; all health facilities were expected to report data for each indicator for all 12 months in a year. Malaria indicators data were analysed for 6235 public and 3143 private health facilities. Between 2011 and 2015, completeness of reporting in the public sector increased significantly for confirmed malaria cases across all age categories (26.5-41.9%, p < 0.0001, in children aged <5 years; 30.6-51.4%, p < 0.0001, in persons aged ≥5 years). Completeness of reporting of new antenatal care (ANC) clients increased from 53.7 to 70.5%, p < 0.0001). Completeness of reporting of intermittent preventive treatment in pregnancy (IPTp) decreased from 64.8 to 53.7%, p < 0.0001 for dose 1 and from 64.6 to 53.4%, p < 0.0001 for dose 2. Data on malaria tests performed and test results were not available in DHIS2 from 2011 to 2014. In 2015, sparse data on microscopy (11.5% for children aged <5 years; 11.8% for persons aged ≥5 years) and malaria rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) (8.1% for all ages) were reported. In the private sector, completeness of reporting increased significantly for confirmed malaria cases across all age categories (16.7-23.1%, p < 0.0001, in children aged <5 years; 19.4-28.6%, p < 0.0001, in persons aged ≥5 years). Completeness of reporting also improved for new ANC clients (16.2-23.6%, p < 0.0001), and for IPTp doses 1 and 2 (16.6-20.2%, p < 0.0001 and 15.5-20.5%, p < 0.0001, respectively). In 2015, less than 3% of data values for malaria tests performed were reported in DHIS2 from the private sector. There have been sustained improvements in the completeness of data reported for most key malaria indicators since the adoption of DHIS2 in Kenya in 2011. However, major data gaps were identified for the malaria-test indicator and overall low reporting across all indicators from private health facilities. A package of proven DHIS2 implementation interventions and performance-based incentives should be considered to improve private-sector data reporting.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 196 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 196 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 50 26%
Researcher 26 13%
Student > Bachelor 13 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 6%
Other 29 15%
Unknown 55 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 35 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 30 15%
Social Sciences 17 9%
Computer Science 13 7%
Design 5 3%
Other 33 17%
Unknown 63 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 11 August 2021.
All research outputs
#3,243,837
of 25,271,884 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
#716
of 5,888 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#56,503
of 324,896 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
#23
of 133 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,271,884 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
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 done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 324,896 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 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 133 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.