↓ Skip to main content

Effect of diagnostic testing on medicines used by febrile children less than five years in 12 malaria-endemic African countries: a mixed-methods study

Overview of attention for article published in Malaria Journal, May 2015
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 (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
116 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
Effect of diagnostic testing on medicines used by febrile children less than five years in 12 malaria-endemic African countries: a mixed-methods study
Published in
Malaria Journal, May 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12936-015-0709-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Emily White Johansson, Peter W Gething, Helena Hildenwall, Bonnie Mappin, Max Petzold, Stefan Swartling Peterson, Katarina Ekholm Selling

Abstract

In 2010, WHO revised guidelines to recommend testing all suspected malaria cases prior to treatment. Yet, evidence to assess programmes is largely derived from limited facility settings in a limited number of countries. National surveys from 12 sub-Saharan African countries were used to examine the effect of diagnostic testing on medicines used by febrile children under five years at the population level, including stratification by malaria risk, transmission season, source of care, symptoms, and age. Data were compiled from 12 Demographic and Health Surveys in 2010-2012 that reported fever prevalence, diagnostic test and medicine use, and socio-economic covariates (n = 16,323 febrile under-fives taken to care). Mixed-effects logistic regression models quantified the influence of diagnostic testing on three outcomes (artemisinin combination therapy (ACT), any anti-malarial or any antibiotic use) after adjusting for data clustering and confounding covariates. For each outcome, interactions between diagnostic testing and the following covariates were separately tested: malaria risk, season, source of care, symptoms, and age. A multiple case study design was used to understand varying results across selected countries and sub-national groups, which drew on programme documents, published research and expert consultations. A descriptive typology of plausible explanations for quantitative results was derived from a cross-case synthesis. Significant variability was found in the effect of diagnostic testing on ACT use across countries (e.g., Uganda OR: 0.84, 95% CI: 0.66-1.06; Mozambique OR: 3.54, 95% CI: 2.33-5.39). Four main themes emerged to explain results: available diagnostics and medicines; quality of care; care-seeking behaviour; and, malaria epidemiology. Significant country variation was found in the effect of diagnostic testing on paediatric fever treatment at the population level, and qualitative results suggest the impact of diagnostic scale-up on treatment practices may not be straightforward in routine conditions given contextual factors (e.g., access to care, treatment-seeking behaviour or supply stock-outs). Despite limitations, quantitative results could help identify countries (e.g., Mozambique) or issues (e.g., malaria risk) where facility-based research or programme attention may be warranted. The mixed-methods approach triangulates different evidence to potentially provide a standard framework to assess routine programmes across countries or over time to fill critical evidence gaps.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Mozambique 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Ethiopia 1 <1%
Unknown 112 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 22 19%
Researcher 21 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 9%
Student > Postgraduate 9 8%
Student > Bachelor 6 5%
Other 21 18%
Unknown 27 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 32 28%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 14%
Social Sciences 13 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 3%
Other 16 14%
Unknown 29 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. 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 06 June 2015.
All research outputs
#1,686,820
of 24,248,886 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
#289
of 5,799 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,625
of 268,008 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
#8
of 119 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,248,886 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,799 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 268,008 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 119 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.