↓ Skip to main content

Factors associated with malaria microscopy diagnostic performance following a pilot quality-assurance programme in health facilities in malaria low-transmission areas of Kenya, 2014

Overview of attention for article published in Malaria Journal, September 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 (75th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
93 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
Factors associated with malaria microscopy diagnostic performance following a pilot quality-assurance programme in health facilities in malaria low-transmission areas of Kenya, 2014
Published in
Malaria Journal, September 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12936-017-2018-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Fredrick Odhiambo, Ann M. Buff, Collins Moranga, Caroline M. Moseti, Jesca Okwara Wesongah, Sara A. Lowther, Wences Arvelo, Tura Galgalo, Thomas O. Achia, Zeinab G. Roka, Waqo Boru, Lily Chepkurui, Bernhards Ogutu, Elizabeth Wanja

Abstract

Malaria accounts for ~21% of outpatient visits annually in Kenya; prompt and accurate malaria diagnosis is critical to ensure proper treatment. In 2013, formal malaria microscopy refresher training for microscopists and a pilot quality-assurance (QA) programme for malaria diagnostics were independently implemented to improve malaria microscopy diagnosis in malaria low-transmission areas of Kenya. A study was conducted to identify factors associated with malaria microscopy performance in the same areas. From March to April 2014, a cross-sectional survey was conducted in 42 public health facilities; 21 were QA-pilot facilities. In each facility, 18 malaria thick blood slides archived during January-February 2014 were selected by simple random sampling. Each malaria slide was re-examined by two expert microscopists masked to health-facility results. Expert results were used as the reference for microscopy performance measures. Logistic regression with specific random effects modelling was performed to identify factors associated with accurate malaria microscopy diagnosis. Of 756 malaria slides collected, 204 (27%) were read as positive by health-facility microscopists and 103 (14%) as positive by experts. Overall, 93% of slide results from QA-pilot facilities were concordant with expert reference compared to 77% in non-QA pilot facilities (p < 0.001). Recently trained microscopists in QA-pilot facilities performed better on microscopy performance measures with 97% sensitivity and 100% specificity compared to those in non-QA pilot facilities (69% sensitivity; 93% specificity; p < 0.01). The overall inter-reader agreement between QA-pilot facilities and experts was κ = 0.80 (95% CI 0.74-0.88) compared to κ = 0.35 (95% CI 0.24-0.46) between non-QA pilot facilities and experts (p < 0.001). In adjusted multivariable logistic regression analysis, recent microscopy refresher training (prevalence ratio [PR] = 13.8; 95% CI 4.6-41.4), ≥5 years of work experience (PR = 3.8; 95% CI 1.5-9.9), and pilot QA programme participation (PR = 4.3; 95% CI 1.0-11.0) were significantly associated with accurate malaria diagnosis. Microscopists who had recently completed refresher training and worked in a QA-pilot facility performed the best overall. The QA programme and formal microscopy refresher training should be systematically implemented together to improve parasitological diagnosis of malaria by microscopy in Kenya.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 93 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 93 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 21 23%
Researcher 15 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 10%
Student > Postgraduate 7 8%
Student > Bachelor 6 6%
Other 11 12%
Unknown 24 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 16%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 10%
Immunology and Microbiology 6 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 6%
Other 17 18%
Unknown 25 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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
#4,901,792
of 24,580,204 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
#1,132
of 5,786 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#79,340
of 320,479 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
#33
of 133 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,580,204 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,786 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 80% 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 320,479 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 75% 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 75% of its contemporaries.