↓ Skip to main content

A complex intervention to improve implementation of World Health Organization guidelines for diagnosis of severe illness in low-income settings: a quasi-experimental study from Uganda

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
12 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
128 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 complex intervention to improve implementation of World Health Organization guidelines for diagnosis of severe illness in low-income settings: a quasi-experimental study from Uganda
Published in
Implementation Science, November 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13012-017-0654-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Matthew J. Cummings, Elijah Goldberg, Savio Mwaka, Olive Kabajaasi, Eric Vittinghoff, Adithya Cattamanchi, Achilles Katamba, Nathan Kenya-Mugisha, Shevin T. Jacob, J. Lucian Davis

Abstract

To improve management of severely ill hospitalized patients in low-income settings, the World Health Organization (WHO) established a triage tool called "Quick Check" to provide clinicians with a rapid, standardized approach to identify patients with severe illness based on recognition of abnormal vital signs. Despite the availability of these guidelines, recognition of severe illness remains challenged in low-income settings, largely as a result of infrequent vital sign monitoring. We conducted a staggered, pre-post quasi-experimental study at four inpatient health facilities in western Uganda to assess the impact of a multi-modal intervention for improving quality of care following formal training on WHO "Quick Check" guidelines for diagnosis of severe illness in low-income settings. Intervention components were developed using the COM-B ("capability," "opportunity," and "motivation" determine "behavior") model and included clinical mentoring by an expert in severe illness care, collaborative improvement meetings with external support supervision, and continuous audits of clinical performance with structured feedback. There were 5759 patients hospitalized from August 2014 to May 2015: 1633 were admitted before and 4126 during the intervention period. Designed to occur twice monthly, collaborative improvement meetings occurred every 2-4 weeks at each site. Clinical mentoring sessions, designed to occur monthly, occurred every 4-6 months at each site. Audit and feedback reports were implemented weekly as designed. During the intervention period, there were significant increases in the site-adjusted likelihood of initial assessment of temperature, heart rate, blood pressure, respiratory rate, mental status, and pulse oximetry. Patients admitted during the intervention period were significantly more likely to be diagnosed with sepsis (4.3 vs. 0.4%, risk ratio 10.1, 95% CI 3.0-31.0, p < 0.001) and severe respiratory distress (3.9 vs. 0.9%, risk ratio 4.5, 95% CI 1.8-10.9, p = 0.001). Theory-informed quality improvement programs can improve vital sign collection and diagnosis of severe illness in low-income settings. Further implementation, evaluation, and scale-up of such interventions are needed to enhance hospital-based triage and severe illness management in these settings. Severe illness management system (SIMS) intervention development, ISRCTN46976783.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 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 128 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 128 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 17 13%
Student > Master 16 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 11%
Student > Bachelor 12 9%
Other 11 9%
Other 27 21%
Unknown 31 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 33 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 18 14%
Psychology 8 6%
Social Sciences 5 4%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 5 4%
Other 21 16%
Unknown 38 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 12 December 2017.
All research outputs
#2,269,529
of 23,007,053 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#516
of 1,723 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#47,379
of 330,777 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#21
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,007,053 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,723 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 330,777 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.