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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
| Title |
Evaluation of a community health worker intervention and the World Health Organization’s Option B versus Option A to improve antenatal care and PMTCT outcomes in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: study protocol for a cluster-randomized controlled health systems implementation trial
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Trials, September 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1745-6215-15-359 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
David Sando, Pascal Geldsetzer, Lucy Magesa, Irene Andrew Lema, Lameck Machumi, Mary Mwanyika-Sando, Nan Li, Donna Spiegelman, Ester Mungure, Hellen Siril, Phares Mujinja, Helga Naburi, Guerino Chalamilla, Charles Kilewo, Anna Mia Ekström, Wafaie W Fawzi, Till W Bärnighausen |
| Abstract |
Mother-to-child transmission of HIV remains an important public health problem in sub-Saharan Africa. As HIV testing and linkage to PMTCT occurs in antenatal care (ANC), major challenges for any PMTCT option in developing countries, including Tanzania, are delays in the first ANC visit and a low overall number of visits. Community health workers (CHWs) have been effective in various settings in increasing the uptake of clinical services and improving treatment retention and adherence. At the beginning of this trial in January 2013, the World Health Organization recommended either of two medication regimens, Option A or B, for prevention of mother-to-child transmission of HIV (PMTCT). It is still largely unclear which option is more effective when implemented in a public healthcare system. This study aims to determine the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, acceptability, and feasibility of: (1) a community health worker (CWH) intervention and (2) PMTCT Option B in improving ANC and PMTCT outcomes. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 338 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | <1% |
| Mexico | 1 | <1% |
| Tanzania, United Republic of | 1 | <1% |
| South Africa | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 333 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 85 | 25% |
| Researcher | 43 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 38 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 19 | 6% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 18 | 5% |
| Other | 56 | 17% |
| Unknown | 79 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 83 | 25% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 59 | 17% |
| Social Sciences | 31 | 9% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 13 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 10 | 3% |
| Other | 50 | 15% |
| Unknown | 92 | 27% |