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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
A knowledge translation intervention to improve tuberculosis care and outcomes in Malawi: a pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Implementation Science, March 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13012-015-0228-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Lisa M Puchalski Ritchie, Michael J Schull, Alexandra LC Martiniuk, Jan Barnsley, Tamara Arenovich, Monique van Lettow, Adrienne K Chan, Edward J Mills, Austine Makwakwa, Merrick Zwarenstein |
| Abstract |
Lay health workers (LHWs) play a pivotal role in addressing the high TB burden in Malawi. LHWs report lack of training to be a key barrier to their role as TB care providers. Given the cost of traditional off-site training, an alternative approach is needed. Our objective was to evaluate the effectiveness of a KT intervention tailored to LHWs needs. The study design is a pragmatic cluster randomized trial. The study was embedded within a larger trial, PALMPLUS, and compared three arms which included 28 health centers in Zomba district, Malawi. The control arm included 14 health centers randomized as controls in the larger trial and maintained as control sites. Seven of 14 PALMPLUS intervention sites were randomized to the LHW intervention (PALM/LHW intervention arm), and the remaining 7 PALMPLUS sites maintained as a PALM only arm. PALMPLUS intervention sites received an educational outreach program targeting mid-level health workers. LHW intervention sites received both the PALMPLUS intervention and the LHW intervention employing on-site peer-led educational outreach and a point-of-care tool tailored to LHWs identified needs. Control sites received no intervention. The main outcome measure is the proportion of treatment successes. Among the 28 sites, there were 178 incident TB cases with 46/80 (0.58) successes in the control group, 44/68 (0.65) successes in the PALMPLUS group, and 21/30 (0.70) successes in the PALM/LHW intervention group. There was no significant effect of the intervention on treatment success in the univariate analysis adjusted for cluster randomization (p = 0.578) or multivariate analysis controlling for covariates with significant model effects (p = 0.760). The overall test of the intervention-arm by TB-type interaction approached but did not achieve significance (p = 0.056), with the interaction significant only in the control arm [RR of treatment success for pulmonary TB relative to non-pulmonary TB, 1.18, 95% CI 1.05-1.31]. We found no significant treatment effect of our intervention. Given the identified trend for effectiveness and urgent need for low-cost approaches to LHW training, further evaluation of tailored KT strategies as a means of LHW training in Malawi and other LMICs is warranted. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01356095 . |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 40% |
| Colombia | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 2 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 60% |
| Scientists | 1 | 20% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 259 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Malawi | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 257 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 43 | 17% |
| Researcher | 39 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 25 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 19 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 14 | 5% |
| Other | 50 | 19% |
| Unknown | 69 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 60 | 23% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 38 | 15% |
| Social Sciences | 20 | 8% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 10 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 7 | 3% |
| Other | 37 | 14% |
| Unknown | 87 | 34% |
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 14 October 2019.
All research outputs
#5,783,702
of 23,924,386 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#965
of 1,740 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#64,684
of 266,601 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#31
of 51 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,924,386 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 1,740 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.8. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% 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 266,601 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 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 51 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.