↓ Skip to main content

Why do people participate in mass anti-malarial administration? Findings from a qualitative study in Nong District, Savannakhet Province, Lao PDR (Laos)

Overview of attention for article published in Malaria Journal, January 2018
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)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
13 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
43 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
114 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
Why do people participate in mass anti-malarial administration? Findings from a qualitative study in Nong District, Savannakhet Province, Lao PDR (Laos)
Published in
Malaria Journal, January 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12936-017-2158-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bipin Adhikari, Koukeo Phommasone, Palingnaphone Kommarasy, Xayaphone Soundala, Phonesavanh Souvanthong, Tiengkham Pongvongsa, Gisela Henriques, Paul N. Newton, Nicholas J. White, Nicholas P. J. Day, Arjen M. Dondorp, Lorenz von Seidlein, Mayfong Mayxay, Phaik Yeong Cheah, Christopher Pell

Abstract

As a part of targeted malaria elimination (TME) in the Greater Mekong Sub-region (GMS), mass drug administration (MDA) with anti-malarials was conducted in four villages in Nong District, Savannakhet Province, Lao PDR (Laos). A high proportion of the target population participated in the MDA, with over 87% agreeing to take the anti-malarial. Drawing on qualitative data collected alongside the MDA, this article explores the factors that led to this high population coverage. Qualitative data collection methods included observations, which were recorded in field notes, focus group discussions (FGDs), and semi-structured interviews (SSIs). Data were collected on local context, MDA-related knowledge, attitudes and perceptions. FGDs and SSIs were audio-recorded, transcribed and translated to English. All transcriptions and field notes underwent qualitative content analysis using QSR NVivo. Respondents recognized malaria as a health concern and described the need for a malaria control program. The risk of malaria including asymptomatic infection was explained in terms of participants' work in forest and fields, and poor hygiene. During the MDA rounds, there was an improvement in knowledge on the concept of asymptomatic malaria, the rationale of MDA and the blood test. In all four villages, poverty affected access to healthcare and the provision of free care by TME was highly appreciated. TME was jointly undertaken by research staff and local volunteers. Authorities were involved in all TME activities. Lao Theung communities were cohesive and community members tended to follow each other's behaviour closely including participation in MDA. Factors such as understanding the concept and rationale of the study, free health care, collaboration with the village volunteers, support from authorities and cohesive communities contributed in building trust and high population coverage in MDA. Future malaria control programmes can become successful in achieving the high coverage in MDAs drawing from the success of TME in Laos. A high population coverage in TME was a combination of various factors that included the community engagement to promote the concept and rationale of MDA for asymptomatic malaria in addition to their baseline understanding of malaria as a health concern, provision of free primary health care, partnering of the research with local volunteers and authorities, building social relationship with community members and the cohesive nature of the communities boosted the trust and participation in MDA.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 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 114 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 114 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 15%
Student > Master 15 13%
Researcher 14 12%
Student > Bachelor 12 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 7%
Other 15 13%
Unknown 33 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 15%
Social Sciences 15 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 8%
Psychology 4 4%
Other 18 16%
Unknown 42 37%
Attention Score in Context

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 25 November 2018.
All research outputs
#4,349,575
of 24,400,706 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
#1,047
of 5,827 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#90,542
of 451,959 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
#18
of 113 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,400,706 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,827 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 451,959 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 113 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.