↓ Skip to main content

Impact of infection prevention and control training on health facilities during the Ebola virus disease outbreak in Guinea

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (63rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
90 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
Impact of infection prevention and control training on health facilities during the Ebola virus disease outbreak in Guinea
Published in
BMC Public Health, April 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12889-018-5444-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mory Keïta, Ansoumane Yassima Camara, Falaye Traoré, Mohamed ElMady Camara, André Kpanamou, Sékou Camara, Aminata Tolno, Bienvenu Houndjo, Fatimatou Diallo, Fatoumata Conté, Lorenzo Subissi

Abstract

In 2014-2016, West Africa faced the most deadly Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) outbreak in history. A key strategy to overcome this outbreak was continual staff training in Infection Prevention and Control (IPC), with a focus on Ebola. This research aimed to evaluate the impact of IPC training and the quality of IPC performance in health care facilities of one municipality of Conakry, Guinea. This study was conducted in February 2016. All health facilities within Ratoma municipality, Conakry, Guinea, were evaluated based on IPC performance standards developed by the Guinean Ministry of Health. The IPC performance of healthcare facilities was categorised into high or low IPC scores based on the median IPC score of the sample. The Mantel-Haenzsel method and logistic regression were used for statistical analysis. Twenty-five percent of health centres had one IPC-trained worker, 53% had at least two IPC-trained workers, and 22% of health centres had no IPC-trained workers. An IPC score above median was positively associated with the number of trained staff; health centres with two or more IPC-trained workers were eight times as likely to have an IPC score above median, while those with one IPC-trained worker were four times as likely, compared to centres with no trained workers. Health centres that implemented IPC cascade training to untrained medical staff were five times as likely to have an IPC score above median. This research highlights the importance of training healthcare staff in IPC and organising regular cascade trainings. IPC strategies implemented during the outbreak should continue to be reinforced for the better health of patients and medical staff, and be considered a key factor in any outbreak response.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 90 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 90 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 16%
Student > Bachelor 9 10%
Researcher 7 8%
Student > Postgraduate 7 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 7%
Other 14 16%
Unknown 33 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 19 21%
Medicine and Dentistry 16 18%
Social Sciences 4 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 3%
Other 10 11%
Unknown 35 39%
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 11 August 2023.
All research outputs
#6,999,787
of 24,374,350 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#7,385
of 16,099 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#116,057
of 330,296 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#205
of 309 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,374,350 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 16,099 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% 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 330,296 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 63% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 309 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.