↓ Skip to main content

Survey of programmatic experiences and challenges in delivery of hepatitis B and C testing in low- and middle-income countries

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Infectious Diseases, November 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 (78th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
10 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
40 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
186 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
Survey of programmatic experiences and challenges in delivery of hepatitis B and C testing in low- and middle-income countries
Published in
BMC Infectious Diseases, November 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12879-017-2767-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Azumi Ishizaki, Julie Bouscaillou, Niklas Luhmann, Stephanie Liu, Raissa Chua, Nick Walsh, Sarah Hess, Elena Ivanova, Teri Roberts, Philippa Easterbrook

Abstract

There have been few reports on programmatic experience of viral hepatitis testing and treatment in resource-limited settings. To inform the development of the 2017 World Health Organization (WHO) viral hepatitis testing guidance and in particular the feasibility of proposed recommendations, we undertook a survey across a range of organisations engaged with hepatitis testing in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Our objective was to describe current hepatitis B and C testing practices across a range of settings in different countries, as well as key barriers or challenges encountered and proposed solutions to promote testing scale-up. Hepatitis testing programmes in predominantly LMICs were identified from the WHO Global Hepatitis Programme contacts database and through WHO regional offices, and invited to participate. The survey comprised a six-part structured questionnaire: general programme information, description of hepatitis testing, treatment and care services, budget and funding, data on programme outcomes, and perceptions on key barriers encountered and strategies to address these. We interviewed 22 viral hepatitis testing programmes from 19 different countries. Nine were from the African region; 6 from the Western Pacific; 4 from South-East Asia; and 3 from Eastern Europe. All but four of the programmes were based in LMICs, and 10 (45.5%) were supported by non-governmental or international organizations. All but two programmes undertook targeted testing of specific affected populations such as people living with HIV, people who inject drugs, sex workers, health care workers, and pregnant women. Only two programmes focussed on routine testing in the general population. The majority of programmes were testing in hospital-based or other health facilities, particularly HIV clinics, and community-based testing was limited. Nucleic acid testing (NAT) for confirmation of HCV and HBV viraemia was available in only 30% and 18% of programmes, respectively. Around a third of programmes required some patient co-payment for diagnosis. The most commonly identified challenges in scale-up of hepatitis testing were: limited community awareness about viral hepatitis; lack of facilities or services for hepatitis testing; no access to low cost treatment, particularly for HCV; absence of national guidance and policies; no dedicated budget for hepatitis; and lack of trained health care and laboratory workers. At this early stage in the global scale-up of testing for viral hepatitis, there is a wide variation in testing practices and approaches across different programmes. There remains limited access to NAT to confirm viraemia, and patient self-payment for testing and treatment is common. There was consensus from implementing organizations that scale-up of testing will require increased community awareness, health care worker training, development of national strategies and guidelines, and improved access to low cost NAT virological testing.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 186 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 186 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 35 19%
Researcher 32 17%
Student > Bachelor 23 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 9%
Other 10 5%
Other 25 13%
Unknown 45 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 47 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 23 12%
Social Sciences 13 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 4%
Other 35 19%
Unknown 50 27%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 01 April 2021.
All research outputs
#3,384,692
of 20,618,952 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#1,054
of 7,101 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#73,762
of 339,426 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#120
of 673 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 20,618,952 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 7,101 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 339,426 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 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 673 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.