↓ Skip to main content

State of inequality in malaria intervention coverage in sub-Saharan African countries

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, October 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 (79th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (52nd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
10 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 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
State of inequality in malaria intervention coverage in sub-Saharan African countries
Published in
BMC Medicine, October 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12916-017-0948-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Katya Galactionova, Thomas A. Smith, Don de Savigny, Melissa A. Penny

Abstract

Scale-up of malaria interventions over the last decade have yielded a significant reduction in malaria transmission and disease burden in sub-Saharan Africa. We estimated economic gradients in the distribution of these efforts and of their impacts within and across endemic countries. Using Demographic and Health Surveys we computed equity metrics to characterize the distribution of malaria interventions in 30 endemic countries proxying economic position with an asset-wealth index. Gradients were summarized in a concentration index, tabulated against level of coverage, and compared among interventions, across countries, and against respective trends over the period 2005-2015. There remain broad differences in coverage of malaria interventions and their distribution by wealth within and across countries. In most, economic gradients are lacking or favor the poorest for vector control; malaria services delivered through the formal healthcare sector are much less equitable. Scale-up of interventions in many countries improved access across the wealth continuum; in some, these efforts consistently prioritized the poorest. Expansions in control programs generally narrowed coverage gaps between economic strata; gradients persist in countries where growth was slower in the poorest quintile or where baseline inequality was large. Despite progress, malaria is consistently concentrated in the poorest, with the degree of inequality in burden far surpassing that expected given gradients in the distribution of interventions. Economic gradients in the distribution of interventions persist over time, limiting progress toward equity in malaria control. We found that, in countries with large baseline inequality in the distribution of interventions, even a small bias in expansion favoring the least poor yielded large gradients in intervention coverage while pro-poor growth failed to close the gap between the poorest and least poor. We demonstrated that dimensions of disadvantage compound for the poor; a lack of economic gradients in the distribution of malaria services does not translate to equity in coverage nor can it be interpreted to imply equity in distribution of risk or disease burden. Our analysis testifies to the progress made by countries in narrowing economic gradients in malaria interventions and highlights the scope for continued monitoring of programs with respect to equity.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 14 15%
Researcher 11 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 12%
Student > Bachelor 7 8%
Other 4 4%
Other 14 15%
Unknown 32 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 17%
Social Sciences 6 6%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 5 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 4%
Other 11 12%
Unknown 35 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 08 December 2021.
All research outputs
#3,801,003
of 23,505,010 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#1,999
of 3,555 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#68,430
of 328,184 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#21
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,505,010 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,555 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 44.5. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% 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 328,184 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 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.