↓ Skip to main content

The treatment of non-malarial febrile illness in Papua New Guinea: findings from cross sectional and longitudinal studies of health worker practice

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (53rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
125 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
The treatment of non-malarial febrile illness in Papua New Guinea: findings from cross sectional and longitudinal studies of health worker practice
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, January 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12913-016-1965-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Olga P. M. Saweri, Manuel W. Hetzel, Ivo Mueller, Peter M. Siba, Justin Pulford

Abstract

The Papua New Guinea Department of Health recently shifted from a presumptive to a 'test and treat' malaria case management policy. This shift was supported by the widespread introduction of malaria rapid diagnostic tests in health facilities across the country. Health workers received training and job-aids detailing how to conduct and interpret a malaria rapid diagnostic test and how to treat test positive cases; however, little instruction on treating non-malaria febrile cases was provided. Accordingly, this study examined health worker case management of non-malarial febrile patients in the 12-month period immediately following the introduction of the revised malaria case management policy. Data were collected from a country-wide cross-sectional survey of febrile case management at randomly selected health facilities and from longitudinal surveillance at sentinel health facilities. Analysis was restricted to febrile patients who tested negative for malaria infection by rapid diagnostic test (N=303 and 5705 outpatients, respectively). 96.8% of non-malarial febrile patients received a diagnosis in the longitudinal sample, compared to 52.4% of the cross-sectional sample. Respiratory tract infections were the most commonly reported diagnoses. Over 90% of patients in both samples were prescribed one or more medications, most commonly an analgesic (71.3 & 72.9% of the longitudinal and cross-sectional samples, respectively), some form of antibiotic (72.7 & 73.4%, respectively) and/or an anthelminthic (17.9 & 16.5%, respectively). Prescribing behaviour was adherent with the recommendations in the standard treatment guidelines in fewer than 20% of cases (longitudinal sample only). Many non-malarial febrile patients are not provided with a diagnosis. When diagnoses are provided they are typically some form of respiratory tract infection. Antibiotics and analgesics are widely prescribed, although medications prescribed rarely adhere to the Papua New Guinea standard treatment guidelines. These findings indicate that Papua New Guinea health workers require support for non-malarial febrile illness case management.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 125 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 124 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 21 17%
Researcher 20 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 10%
Student > Bachelor 10 8%
Student > Postgraduate 6 5%
Other 30 24%
Unknown 26 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 39 31%
Nursing and Health Professions 17 14%
Social Sciences 6 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 3%
Other 20 16%
Unknown 35 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 26 March 2018.
All research outputs
#7,795,929
of 23,674,309 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#3,840
of 7,899 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#143,177
of 424,304 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#61
of 122 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,674,309 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,899 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.0. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% 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 424,304 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 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 122 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.