↓ Skip to main content

Utilization of community health workers for malaria treatment: results from a three-year panel study in the districts of Kaya and Zorgho, Burkina Faso

Overview of attention for article published in Malaria Journal, February 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
50 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
147 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
Utilization of community health workers for malaria treatment: results from a three-year panel study in the districts of Kaya and Zorgho, Burkina Faso
Published in
Malaria Journal, February 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12936-015-0591-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Thomas Druetz, Valéry Ridde, Seni Kouanda, Antarou Ly, Souleymane Diabaté, Slim Haddad

Abstract

Malaria is holo-endemic in Burkina Faso and causes approximately 40,000 deaths every year. In 2010, health authorities scaled up community case management of malaria with artemisinin-based combination therapy. Previous trials and pilot project evaluations have shown that this strategy may be feasible, acceptable, and effective under controlled implementation conditions. However, little is known about its effectiveness or feasibility/acceptability under real-world conditions of implementation at national scale. A panel study was conducted in two health districts of Burkina Faso, Kaya and Zorgho. Three rounds of surveys were conducted during the peak malaria-transmission season (in August 2011, 2012 and 2013) in a panel of 2,232 randomly selected households. All sickness episodes in children under five and associated health-seeking practices were documented. Community health worker (CHW) treatment coverage was evaluated and the determinants of consulting a CHW were analysed using multi-level logistic regression. In urban areas, less than 1% of sick children consulted a CHW, compared to 1%-9% in rural areas. Gaps remained between intentions and actual practices in treatment-seeking behaviour. In 2013, the most frequent reasons for not consulting the CHW were: the fact of not knowing him/her (78% in urban areas; 33% in rural areas); preferring the health centre (23% and 45%, respectively); and drug stock-outs (2% and 12%, respectively). The odds of visiting a CHW in rural areas significantly increased with the distance to the nearest health centre and if the household had been visited by a CHW during the previous three months. This study shows that CHWs are rarely used in Burkina Faso to treat malaria in children. Issues of implementation fidelity, a lack of adaptation to the local context and problems of acceptability/feasibility might have undermined the effectiveness of community case management of malaria. While some suggest extending this strategy in urban areas, total absence of CHW services uptake in these areas suggest that caution is required. Even in rural areas, treatment coverage by CHWs was considerably less than that reported by previous trials and pilot projects. This study confirms the necessity of evaluating public health interventions under real-world conditions of implementation.

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 147 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Kenya 1 <1%
Malawi 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 143 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 32 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 24 16%
Researcher 23 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 5%
Other 7 5%
Other 26 18%
Unknown 27 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 44 30%
Social Sciences 22 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 8%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 5 3%
Other 14 10%
Unknown 35 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 22 September 2016.
All research outputs
#7,398,298
of 22,792,160 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
#2,391
of 5,561 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#108,393
of 358,538 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
#33
of 112 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,792,160 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,561 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% 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 358,538 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 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 112 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 69% of its contemporaries.