↓ Skip to main content

Malaria and the mobile and migrant population in Cambodia: a population movement framework to inform strategies for malaria control and elimination

Overview of attention for article published in Malaria Journal, June 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 (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
12 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
110 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
233 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
Malaria and the mobile and migrant population in Cambodia: a population movement framework to inform strategies for malaria control and elimination
Published in
Malaria Journal, June 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12936-015-0773-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Philippe Guyant, Sara E Canavati, Nguon Chea, Po Ly, Maxine Anne Whittaker, Arantxa Roca-Feltrer, Shunmay Yeung

Abstract

The relationships between human population movement (HPM) and health are a concern at global level. In the case of malaria, those links are crucial in relation to the spread of drug resistant parasites and to the elimination of malaria in the Greater Mekong sub-Region (GMS) and beyond. The mobile and migrant populations (MMP) who are involved in forest related activities are both at high risk of being infected with malaria and at risk of receiving late and sub-standard treatment due to poor access to health services. In Cambodia, in 2012, the National Malaria Control Programme (NMCP) identified, as a key objective, the development of a specific strategy for MMPs in order to address these challenges. A population movement framework (PMF) for malaria was developed and operationalized in order to contribute to this strategy. A review of the published and unpublished literature was conducted. Based on a synthesis of the results, information was presented and discussed with experienced researchers and programme managers in the Cambodian NMCP and led to the development and refinement of a PMF for malaria. The framework was "tested" for face and content validity with national experts through a workshop approach. In the literature, HPM has been described using various spatial and temporal dimensions both in the context of the spread of anti-malarial drug resistance, and in the context of malaria elimination and previous classifications have categorized MMPs in Cambodia and the GMS through using a number of different criteria. Building on these previous models, the PMF was developed and then refined and populated with in-depth information relevant to Cambodia collected from social science research and field experiences in Cambodia. The framework comprises of the PMF itself, MMP activity profiles and a Malaria Risk Index which is a summation of three related indices: a vulnerability index, an exposure index and an access index which allow a qualitative ranking of malaria risk in the MMP population. Application of currently available data to the framework illustrates that the highest risk population are those highly mobile populations engaged in forest work. This paper describes the process of defining MMPs in Cambodia, identifying the different activities and related risks to appropriately target and tailor interventions to the highest risk groups. The framework has been used to develop more targeted behaviour change and outreach interventions for MMPs in Cambodia and its utility and effectiveness will be evaluated as part of those interventions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 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 233 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 230 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 52 22%
Student > Master 51 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 9%
Student > Bachelor 19 8%
Student > Postgraduate 10 4%
Other 41 18%
Unknown 40 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 62 27%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 23 10%
Social Sciences 23 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 17 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 3%
Other 48 21%
Unknown 53 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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 21 November 2017.
All research outputs
#2,037,585
of 25,307,332 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
#367
of 5,899 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,722
of 270,744 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
#10
of 100 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,307,332 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,899 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 270,744 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 100 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 91% of its contemporaries.