↓ Skip to main content

Quality of uncomplicated malaria case management in Ghana among insured and uninsured patients

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal for Equity in Health, July 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
148 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
Quality of uncomplicated malaria case management in Ghana among insured and uninsured patients
Published in
International Journal for Equity in Health, July 2014
DOI 10.1186/s12939-014-0063-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ama P Fenny, Kristian S Hansen, Ulrika Enemark, Felix A Asante

Abstract

IntroductionThe National Health Insurance Act, 2003 (Act 650) established the National Health Insurance Scheme (NHIS) in Ghana with the aim of increasing access to health care and improving the quality of basic health care services for all citizens. The main objective is to assess the effect of health insurance on the quality of case management for patients with uncomplicated malaria, ascertaining any significant differences in treatment between insured and non-insured patients.MethodA structured questionnaire was used to collect data from 523 respondents diagnosed with malaria and prescribed malaria drugs from public and private health facilities in 3 districts across Ghana¿s three ecological zones. Collected information included initial examinations performed on patients (temperature, weight, age, blood pressure and pulse); observations of malaria symptoms by trained staff, laboratory tests conducted and type of drugs prescribed. Insurance status of patients, age, gender, education level and occupation were asked in the interviews.ResultsOf the 523 patients interviewed, only 40 (8%) were uninsured. Routine recording of the patients¿ age, weight, and temperature was high in all the facilities. In general, assessments needed to identify suspected malaria were low in all the facilities with hot body/fever and headache ranking the highest and convulsion ranking the lowest. Parasitological assessments in all the facilities were also very low. All patients interviewed were prescribed ACTs which is in adherence to the drug of choice for malaria treatment in Ghana. However, there were no significant differences in the quality of malaria treatment given to the uninsured and insured patients.ConclusionAdherence to the standard protocol of malaria treatment is low. This is especially the case for parasitological confirmation of all suspected malaria patients before treatment with an antimalarial as currently recommended for the effective management of malaria in the country. The results show that about 16 percent of total sample were parasitologically tested. Effective management of the disease demands proper diagnosis and treatment and therefore facilities need to be adequately supplied with RDTs or be equipped with well functioning laboratories to provide adequate testing.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Ghana 1 <1%
Unknown 147 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 42 28%
Researcher 20 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 11%
Student > Postgraduate 10 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 6%
Other 21 14%
Unknown 29 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 36 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 29 20%
Social Sciences 14 9%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 7 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 4%
Other 21 14%
Unknown 35 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 07 August 2014.
All research outputs
#15,303,385
of 22,759,618 outputs
Outputs from International Journal for Equity in Health
#1,529
of 1,892 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#132,400
of 228,861 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal for Equity in Health
#14
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,759,618 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,892 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.2. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% 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 228,861 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.