↓ Skip to main content

The "ComPAS Trial" combined treatment model for acute malnutrition: study protocol for the economic evaluation

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
14 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
47 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 "ComPAS Trial" combined treatment model for acute malnutrition: study protocol for the economic evaluation
Published in
Trials, April 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13063-018-2594-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Natasha Lelijveld, Jeanette Bailey, Amy Mayberry, Lani Trenouth, Dieynaba S. N’Diaye, Hassan Haghparast-Bidgoli, Chloe Puett

Abstract

Acute malnutrition is currently divided into severe (SAM) and moderate (MAM) based on level of wasting. SAM and MAM currently have separate treatment protocols and products, managed by separate international agencies. For SAM, the dose of treatment is allocated by the child's weight. A combined and simplified protocol for SAM and MAM, with a standardised dose of ready-to-use therapeutic food (RUTF), is being trialled for non-inferior recovery rates and may be more cost-effective than the current standard protocols for treating SAM and MAM. This is the protocol for the economic evaluation of the ComPAS trial, a cluster-randomised controlled, non-inferiority trial that compares a novel combined protocol for treating uncomplicated acute malnutrition compared to the current standard protocol in South Sudan and Kenya. We will calculate the total economic costs of both protocols from a societal perspective, using accounting data, interviews and survey questionnaires. The incremental cost of implementing the combined protocol will be estimated, and all costs and outcomes will be presented as a cost-consequence analysis. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio will be calculated for primary and secondary outcome, if statistically significant. We hypothesise that implementing the combined protocol will be cost-effective due to streamlined logistics at clinic level, reduced length of treatment, especially for MAM, and reduced dosages of RUTF. The findings of this economic evaluation will be important for policymakers, especially given the hypothesised non-inferiority of the main health outcomes. The publication of this protocol aims to improve rigour of conduct and transparency of data collection and analysis. It is also intended to promote inclusion of economic evaluation in other nutrition intervention studies, especially for MAM, and improve comparability with other studies. ISRCTN 30393230 , date: 16/03/2017.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 47 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 26%
Student > Master 11 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 11%
Student > Bachelor 3 6%
Unspecified 2 4%
Other 6 13%
Unknown 8 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 15%
Social Sciences 5 11%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 4 9%
Psychology 3 6%
Other 8 17%
Unknown 11 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 15 March 2019.
All research outputs
#1,587,479
of 14,501,785 outputs
Outputs from Trials
#643
of 3,805 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#49,120
of 275,848 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trials
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,501,785 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,805 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 275,848 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 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them