↓ Skip to main content

The past, present and future use of epidemiological intelligence to plan malaria vector control and parasite prevention in Uganda

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

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
188 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
The past, present and future use of epidemiological intelligence to plan malaria vector control and parasite prevention in Uganda
Published in
Malaria Journal, April 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12936-015-0677-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ambrose O Talisuna, Abdisalan M Noor, Albert P Okui, Robert W Snow

Abstract

An important prelude to developing strategies to control infectious diseases is a detailed epidemiological evidence platform to target cost-effective interventions and define resource needs. A review of published and un-published reports of malaria vector control and parasite prevention in Uganda was conducted for the period 1900-2013. The objective was to provide a perspective as to how epidemiological intelligence was used to design malaria control before and during the global malaria eradication programme (GMEP) and to contrast this with the evidence generated in support of the Roll Back Malaria (RBM) initiative from 1998 to date. During the GMEP era, comprehensive investigations were undertaken on the effectiveness of vector and parasite control such as indoor residual house-spraying (IRS) and mass drug administration (MDA) at different sites in Uganda. Nationwide malariometric surveys were undertaken between 1964 and 1967 to provide a profile of risk, epidemiology and seasonality leading to an evidence-based national cartography of risk to characterize the diversity of malaria transmission in Uganda. At the launch of the RBM initiative in the late 1990s, an equivalent level of evidence was lacking. There was no contemporary national evidence-base for the likely impact of insecticide-treated nets (ITN), no new malariometric data, no new national cartography of malaria risk or any evidence of tailored intervention delivery based on variations in the ecology of malaria risk in Uganda. Despite millions of dollars of overseas development assistance over the last ten years in ITN, and more recently the resurrection of the use of IRS, the epidemiological impact of vector control remains uncertain due to an absence of nationwide basic parasite and vector-based field studies. Readily available epidemiological data should become the future business model to maximize malaria funding from 2015. Over the next five to ten years, accountability, impact analysis, financial business cases supported by a culture of data use should become the new paradigm by which malaria programmes, governments and their development partners operate.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 188 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Panama 1 <1%
Indonesia 1 <1%
Ghana 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 181 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 33 18%
Researcher 26 14%
Student > Bachelor 21 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 9%
Other 11 6%
Other 37 20%
Unknown 43 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 35 19%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 20 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 13 7%
Social Sciences 13 7%
Other 46 24%
Unknown 46 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 23 January 2018.
All research outputs
#6,599,423
of 24,580,204 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
#1,646
of 5,786 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#72,259
of 268,691 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
#39
of 114 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,580,204 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,786 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% 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 268,691 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 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 114 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 66% of its contemporaries.