↓ Skip to main content

A critical appraisal of guidelines used for management of severe acute malnutrition in South Africa’s referral system

Overview of attention for article published in Health Research Policy and Systems, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
66 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
A critical appraisal of guidelines used for management of severe acute malnutrition in South Africa’s referral system
Published in
Health Research Policy and Systems, October 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12961-017-0255-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Faith Nankasa Mambulu-Chikankheni, John Eyles, Ejemai Amaize Eboreime, Prudence Ditlopo

Abstract

Focusing on healthcare referral processes for children with severe acute malnutrition (SAM) in South Africa, this paper discusses the comprehensiveness of documents (global and national) that guide the country's SAM healthcare. This research is relevant because South African studies on SAM mostly examine the implementation of WHO guidelines in hospitals, making their technical relevance to the country's lower level and referral healthcare system under-explored. To add to both literature and methods for studying SAM healthcare, we critically appraised four child healthcare guidelines (global and national) and conducted complementary expert interviews (n = 5). Combining both methods enabled us to examine the comprehensiveness of the documents as related to guiding SAM healthcare within the country's referral system as well as the credibility (rigour and stakeholder representation) of the guideline documents' development process. None of the guidelines appraised covered all steps of SAM referrals; however, each addressed certain steps thoroughly, apart from transit care. Our study also revealed that national documents were mostly modelled after WHO guidelines but were not explicitly adapted to local context. Furthermore, we found most guidelines' formulation processes to be unclear and stakeholder involvement in the process to be minimal. In adapting guidelines for management of SAM in South Africa, it is important that local context applicability is taken into consideration. In doing this, wider stakeholder involvement is essential; this is important because factors that affect SAM management go beyond in-hospital care. Community, civil society, medical and administrative involvement during guideline formulation processes will enhance acceptability and adherence to the guidelines.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 66 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 66 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 18 27%
Student > Bachelor 7 11%
Researcher 6 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 6%
Other 2 3%
Other 7 11%
Unknown 22 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 16 24%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 15%
Social Sciences 3 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 2%
Other 8 12%
Unknown 26 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 October 2017.
All research outputs
#6,136,697
of 23,006,268 outputs
Outputs from Health Research Policy and Systems
#722
of 1,226 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#100,034
of 327,016 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Research Policy and Systems
#19
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,006,268 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,226 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.0. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% 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 327,016 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.