↓ Skip to main content

A mobile phone based tool to identify symptoms of common childhood diseases in Ghana: development and evaluation of the integrated clinical algorithm in a cross-sectional study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
123 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
A mobile phone based tool to identify symptoms of common childhood diseases in Ghana: development and evaluation of the integrated clinical algorithm in a cross-sectional study
Published in
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, March 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12911-018-0600-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Konstantin H. Franke, Ralf Krumkamp, Aliyu Mohammed, Nimako Sarpong, Ellis Owusu-Dabo, Johanna Brinkel, Julius N. Fobil, Axel Bonacic Marinovic, Philip Asihene, Mark Boots, Jürgen May, Benno Kreuels

Abstract

The aim of this study was the development and evaluation of an algorithm-based diagnosis-tool, applicable on mobile phones, to support guardians in providing appropriate care to sick children. The algorithm was developed on the basis of the Integrated Management of Childhood Illness (IMCI) guidelines and evaluated at a hospital in Ghana. Two hundred and thirty-seven guardians applied the tool to assess their child's symptoms. Data recorded by the tool and health records completed by a physician were compared in terms of symptom detection, disease assessment and treatment recommendation. To compare both assessments, Kappa statistics and predictive values were calculated. The tool detected the symptoms of cough, fever, diarrhoea and vomiting with good agreement to the physicians' findings (kappa = 0.64; 0.59; 0.57 and 0.42 respectively). The disease assessment barely coincided with the physicians' findings. The tool's treatment recommendation correlated with the physicians' assessments in 93 out of 237 cases (39.2% agreement, kappa = 0.11), but underestimated a child's condition in only seven cases (3.0%). The algorithm-based tool achieved reliable symptom detection and treatment recommendations were administered conformably to the physicians' assessment. Testing in domestic environment is envisaged.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 123 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 123 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 21 17%
Researcher 13 11%
Student > Bachelor 11 9%
Other 8 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 7%
Other 27 22%
Unknown 35 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 26 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 9%
Psychology 6 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 4%
Social Sciences 5 4%
Other 22 18%
Unknown 48 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 27 April 2018.
All research outputs
#13,357,452
of 23,045,021 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#958
of 2,009 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#165,662
of 330,042 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#4
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,045,021 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,009 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% 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 330,042 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 5 of them.