↓ Skip to main content

Provider and patient perceptions of malaria rapid diagnostic test use in Nigeria: a cross-sectional evaluation

Overview of attention for article published in Malaria Journal, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
96 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
Provider and patient perceptions of malaria rapid diagnostic test use in Nigeria: a cross-sectional evaluation
Published in
Malaria Journal, May 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12936-018-2346-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Olugbenga A. Mokuolu, Olufemi O. Ajumobi, Godwin N. Ntadom, Olanrewaju T. Adedoyin, Alero A. Roberts, Chimere O. Agomo, Kate U. Edozieh, Henrietta U. Okafor, Robinson D. Wammanda, Friday A. Odey, Ibrahim K. Maikore, Olatayo O. Abikoye, Adekunle D. Alabi, Chiomah Amajoh, Bala M. Audu

Abstract

Nigeria commenced a phased programmatic deployment of rapid diagnostic tests (RDT) at the primary health care (PHC) facility levels since 2011. Despite various efforts, the national testing rate for malaria is still very low. The uptake of RDT has been variable. This study was undertaken to determine the provider and patient perceptions to RDT use at the PHC level in Nigeria with their implications for improving uptake and compliance. A cross-sectional survey was conducted in 120 randomly selected PHCs across six states, across the six-geopolitical zones of Nigeria in January 2013. Health facility staff interviews were conducted to assess health workers (HW) perception, prescription practices and determinants of RDT use. Patient exit interviews were conducted to assess patient perception of RDT from ten patients/caregivers who met the eligibility criterion and were consecutively selected in each PHC, and to determine HW's compliance with RDT test results indirectly. Community members, each selected by their ward development committees in each Local Government Area were recruited for focus group discussion on their perceptions to RDT use. Health workers would use RDT results because of confidence in RDT results (95.4%) and its reduction in irrational use of artemisinin-based combination therapy (ACT) (87.2%). However, in Enugu state, RDT was not used by health workers because of the pervasive notion RDT that results were inaccurate. Among the 1207 exit interviews conducted, 549 (45.5%) had received RDT test. Compliance rate (administering ACT to positive patients and withholding ACT from negative patients) from patient exit interviews was 90.2%. Among caregivers/patients who had RDT done, over 95% knew that RDT tested for malaria, felt it was necessary and liked the test. Age of patients less than 5 years (p = 0.04) and "high" educational status (p = 0.0006) were factors influencing HW's prescription of ACT to RDT negative patients. The study demonstrated positive perception to RDT use by HW and among community members with good compliance rate among health workers at the PHC level. This positive perception should be explored in improving the current low level of malaria testing in Nigeria while addressing the influence of age on HW administration of ACT to RDT negative cases.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 96 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 96 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 18 19%
Student > Postgraduate 13 14%
Researcher 10 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 7%
Other 12 13%
Unknown 27 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 32 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 11%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 8 8%
Psychology 5 5%
Social Sciences 3 3%
Other 9 9%
Unknown 28 29%
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 30 July 2018.
All research outputs
#14,439,740
of 24,400,706 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
#3,639
of 5,827 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#172,181
of 332,077 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
#73
of 113 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,400,706 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,827 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 332,077 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 113 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.