↓ Skip to main content

Is there a distinction between malaria treatment and intermittent preventive treatment? Insights from a cross-sectional study of anti-malarial drug use among Ugandan pregnant women

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

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (61st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
76 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
Is there a distinction between malaria treatment and intermittent preventive treatment? Insights from a cross-sectional study of anti-malarial drug use among Ugandan pregnant women
Published in
Malaria Journal, May 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12936-015-0702-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Charles O Odongo, Kuteesa R Bisaso, Freddy Kitutu, Celestino Obua, Josaphat Byamugisha

Abstract

In Uganda, treatment of clinical malaria and intermittent preventive treatment with sulphadoxine-pyrimethamine (SP) are common during pregnancy. As a result, both formal and informal reports from antenatal sources suggest possible misuse of SP for malaria treatment among pregnant women. The objective of this study was to investigate anti-malarial drug use patterns among women who had recently suffered malaria illness before and during pregnancy. A cross-sectional study in which a structured questionnaire (interviewer-administered) was used to collect data from pregnant women attending an urban antenatal clinic. Details of medicines used to treat malaria episodes suffered before and during pregnancy were captured. A first order Markov probability model was used to estimate probabilities of transitioning between treatment choices made before and during pregnancy. Logistic regression was used to explore whether demographic and obstetric characteristics were associated with transition patterns. Seven hundred women were interviewed among whom 428 had suffered malaria in both instances. Three hundred thirty of these could recall the medicines used in both instances. Women who used ACT/QNN (correct choice) before pregnancy had higher probabilities of transitioning to SP than staying on ACT/QNN during pregnancy (0.463 versus 0.451). Access of medicines from private outlets (clinics and pharmacies) were more than nine times predictive of receiving correct medicines (p=0.035 and p=0.039 respectively). Access of medicines from clinics was 5.9 times protective against receiving SP for malaria treatment (p=0.033). Among those who used SP before pregnancy, there was a 0.75 probability of staying on it during pregnancy. None of the factors explored could explain this observation. Use of SP for malaria treatment is common during pregnancy. This may be contributing to adverse pregnancy outcomes. Antenatal care providers should endeavour to emphasize the distinction between treatment and prevention of malaria during pregnancy.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 1%
Unknown 75 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 26 34%
Researcher 9 12%
Unspecified 6 8%
Student > Bachelor 5 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 7%
Other 10 13%
Unknown 15 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 16%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 5%
Other 14 18%
Unknown 21 28%
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 12 May 2015.
All research outputs
#6,850,416
of 22,803,211 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
#2,047
of 5,562 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#81,479
of 264,285 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
#42
of 114 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,803,211 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,562 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 62% 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 264,285 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 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 61% of its contemporaries.