↓ Skip to main content

Mid-upper-arm circumference based case-detection, admission, and discharging of under five children in a large-scale community-based management of acute malnutrition program in Nigeria

Overview of attention for article published in Archives of Public Health, April 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 (78th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
70 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
Mid-upper-arm circumference based case-detection, admission, and discharging of under five children in a large-scale community-based management of acute malnutrition program in Nigeria
Published in
Archives of Public Health, April 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13690-018-0266-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stanley Chitekwe, Sibhatu Biadgilign, Assaye Tolla, Mark Myatt

Abstract

Severe acute malnutrition (SAM) threatens the lives of millions of children worldwide particularly in low and middle-income countries (LMICs). Community-based management of acute malnutrition (CMAM) is an approach to treating large numbers of cases of severe acute malnutrition (SAM) in a community setting. There is a debate about the use of mid-upper arm circumference (MUAC) for admitting and discharging SAM children. This article describes the experience of using MUAC for screening, case-finding, referral, admission, and discharge in a large-scale CMAM program delivered through existing primary health care facilities in Nigeria. Over one hundred thousand (n = 102,245) individual CMAM beneficiary records were collected from two of the eleven states (i.e. Katsina and Jigawa) that provide CMAM programming in Nigeria. The data were double entered and checked using EpiData version 3.2 and analyzed using the R language for data-analysis graphics. The median MUAC at admission was 109 mm. Among admissions, 37.4% (38,275) had a comorbidity recorded at admission and 7.4% (7537) were recorded as having developed comorbidity during the treatment. Analysis in the better performing state program in the most recent year for which data were available found that 87.1% (n = 13,273) of admitted cases recovered and were discharged as cured, 9.2% (n = 1396) defaulted and were lost to follow-up, 2.9% (n = 443) were discharged as non-recovered, 0.7% (n = 104) were transferred to inpatient services, and 0.2% (n = 27) were known (died, to be dead or to have passed) during the treatment episode. The program met SPHERE minimum standards for treatment outcomes for therapeutic feeding programs. Factors associated with negative outcomes (default, non-recovery, transfer, and death) were distance between home and the treatment center; lower MUAC, diarrhea and cough at admission; or developing diarrhea, vomiting, fever, or cough during the treatment episode. This study confirms that MUAC can be used for both admitting and discharging criteria in CMAM programs with MUAC < 115 mm for admission and MUAC > = 115 mm or at discharge (a higher discharge threshold could be used). Long distances between home and treatment centers, lower MUAC at admission, or having diarrhea, vomiting, fever, or cough during the treatment episode were factors associated with negative outcome. Providing CMAM services closer to the community, using mobile and / or satellite clinics, counseling of mothers by health workers to encourage early treatment seeking behavior, and screening of patients at each patient visit for early detection and treatment of comorbidities are recommended.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 70 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 70 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 11%
Student > Bachelor 7 10%
Researcher 5 7%
Other 5 7%
Other 7 10%
Unknown 24 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 14%
Social Sciences 5 7%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 4%
Computer Science 2 3%
Other 9 13%
Unknown 26 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 June 2018.
All research outputs
#3,780,684
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Archives of Public Health
#212
of 1,144 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#73,735
of 343,335 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Archives of Public Health
#4
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,144 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 343,335 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 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 6 of them.