↓ Skip to main content

Piloting a programme tool to evaluate malaria case investigation and reactive case detection activities: results from 3 settings in the Asia Pacific

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Readers on

mendeley
77 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
Piloting a programme tool to evaluate malaria case investigation and reactive case detection activities: results from 3 settings in the Asia Pacific
Published in
Malaria Journal, August 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12936-017-1991-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chris Cotter, Prayuth Sudathip, Herdiana Herdiana, Yuanyuan Cao, Yaobao Liu, Alex Luo, Neil Ranasinghe, Adam Bennett, Jun Cao, Roly D. Gosling

Abstract

Case investigation and reactive case detection (RACD) activities are widely-used in low transmission settings to determine the suspected origin of infection and identify and treat malaria infections nearby to the index patient household. Case investigation and RACD activities are time and resource intensive, include methodologies that vary across eliminating settings, and have no standardized metrics or tools available to monitor and evaluate them. In response to this gap, a simple programme tool was developed for monitoring and evaluating (M&E) RACD activities and piloted by national malaria programmes. During the development phase, four modules of the RACD M&E tool were created to assess and evaluate key case investigation and RACD activities and costs. A pilot phase was then carried out by programme implementers between 2013 and 2015, during which malaria surveillance teams in three different settings (China, Indonesia, Thailand) piloted the tool over a period of 3 months each. This study describes summary results of the pilots and feasibility and impact of the tool on programmes. All three study areas implemented the RACD M&E tool modules, and pilot users reported the tool and evaluation process were helpful to identify gaps in RACD programme activities. In the 45 health facilities evaluated, 71.8% (97/135; min 35.3-max 100.0%) of the proper notification and reporting forms and 20.0% (27/135; min 0.0-max 100.0%) of standard operating procedures (SOPs) were available to support malaria elimination activities. The tool highlighted gaps in reporting key data indicators on the completeness for malaria case reporting (98.8%; min 93.3-max 100.0%), case investigations (65.6%; min 61.8-max 78.4%) and RACD activities (70.0%; min 64.7-max 100.0%). Evaluation of the SOPs showed that knowledge and practices of malaria personnel varied within and between study areas. Average monthly costs for conducting case investigation and RACD activities showed variation between study areas (min USD $844.80-max USD $2038.00) for the malaria personnel, commodities, services and other costs required to carry out the activities. The RACD M&E tool was implemented in the three pilot areas, identifying key gaps that led to impacts on programme decision making. Study findings support the need for routine M&E of malaria case reporting, case investigation and RACD activities. Scale-up of the RACD M&E tool in malaria-eliminating settings will contribute to improved programme performance to the high level that is required to reach elimination.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 77 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 17 22%
Student > Master 12 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 9%
Student > Bachelor 6 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 5%
Other 9 12%
Unknown 22 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 25 32%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 5%
Environmental Science 3 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 4%
Other 11 14%
Unknown 27 35%
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 24 August 2017.
All research outputs
#14,362,315
of 22,999,744 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
#3,988
of 5,594 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#176,406
of 317,366 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
#111
of 124 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,999,744 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,594 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% 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 317,366 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 124 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.