↓ Skip to main content

Infant and child mortality in relation to malaria transmission in KEMRI/CDC HDSS, Western Kenya: validation of verbal autopsy

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 (74th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
131 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
Infant and child mortality in relation to malaria transmission in KEMRI/CDC HDSS, Western Kenya: validation of verbal autopsy
Published in
Malaria Journal, January 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12936-018-2184-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nyaguara O. Amek, Annemieke Van Eijk, Kim A. Lindblade, Mary Hamel, Nabie Bayoh, John Gimnig, Kayla F. Laserson, Laurence Slutsker, Thomas Smith, Penelope Vounatsou

Abstract

Malaria transmission reduction is a goal of many malaria control programmes. Little is known of how much mortality can be reduced by specific reductions in transmission. Verbal autopsy (VA) is widely used for estimating malaria specific mortality rates, but does not reliably distinguish malaria from other febrile illnesses. Overall malaria attributable mortality includes both direct and indirect deaths. It is unclear what proportion of the deaths averted by reducing malaria transmission are classified as malaria in VA. Both all-cause, and cause-specific mortality reported by VA for children under 5 years of age, were assembled from the KEMRI/CDC health and demographic surveillance system in Siaya county, rural Western Kenya for the years 2002-2004. These were linked to household-specific estimates of the Plasmodium falciparum entomological inoculation rate (EIR) based on high resolution spatio-temporal geostatistical modelling of entomological data. All-cause and malaria specific mortality (by VA), were analysed in relation to EIR, insecticide-treated net use (ITN), socioeconomic status (SES) and parameters describing space-time correlation. Time at risk for each child was analysed using Bayesian geostatistical Cox proportional hazard models, with time-dependent covariates. The outputs were used to estimate the diagnostic performance of VA in measuring mortality that can be attributed to malaria exposure. The overall under-five mortality rate was 80 per 1000 person-years during the study period. Eighty-one percent of the total deaths were assigned causes of death by VA, with malaria assigned as the main cause of death except in the neonatal period. Although no trend was observed in malaria-specific mortality assessed by VA, ITN use was associated with reduced all-cause mortality in infants (hazard ratio 0.15, 95% CI 0.02, 0.63) and the EIR was strongly associated with both all-cause and malaria-specific mortality. 48.2% of the deaths could be attributed to malaria by analysing the exposure-response relationship, though only 20.5% of VAs assigned malaria as the cause and the sensitivity of VAs was estimated to be only 26%. Although VAs assigned some deaths to malaria even in areas where there was estimated to be no exposure, the specificity of the VAs was estimated to be 85%. Interventions that reduce P. falciparum transmission intensity will not only significantly reduce malaria-diagnosed mortality, but also mortality assigned to other causes in under-5 year old children in endemic areas. In this setting, the VA tool based on clinician review substantially underestimates the number of deaths that could be averted by reducing malaria exposure in childhood, but has a reasonably high specificity. This suggests that malaria transmission-reducing interventions such as ITNs can potentially reduce overall child mortality by as much as twice the total direct malaria burden estimated from VAs.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 131 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 131 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 21 16%
Researcher 18 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 8%
Student > Bachelor 8 6%
Student > Postgraduate 7 5%
Other 27 21%
Unknown 39 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 25 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 9%
Social Sciences 8 6%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 6 5%
Computer Science 6 5%
Other 33 25%
Unknown 41 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 June 2019.
All research outputs
#6,066,097
of 24,400,706 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
#1,507
of 5,827 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#115,521
of 450,480 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
#33
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 75th 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 gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 450,480 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 74% 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 gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.