↓ Skip to main content

Evaluation of malaria rapid diagnostic test (RDT) use by community health workers: a longitudinal study in western Kenya

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
15 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
115 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
Evaluation of malaria rapid diagnostic test (RDT) use by community health workers: a longitudinal study in western Kenya
Published in
Malaria Journal, May 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12936-018-2358-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Matthew R. Boyce, Diana Menya, Elizabeth L. Turner, Jeremiah Laktabai, Wendy Prudhomme-O’Meara

Abstract

Malaria rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) are a simple, point-of-care technology that can improve the diagnosis and subsequent treatment of malaria. They are an increasingly common diagnostic tool, but concerns remain about their use by community health workers (CHWs). These concerns regard the long-term trends relating to infection prevention measures, the interpretation of test results and adherence to treatment protocols. This study assessed whether CHWs maintained their competency at conducting RDTs over a 12-month timeframe, and if this competency varied with specific CHW characteristics. From June to September, 2015, CHWs (n = 271) were trained to conduct RDTs using a 3-day validated curriculum and a baseline assessment was completed. Between June and August, 2016, CHWs (n = 105) were randomly selected and recruited for follow-up assessments using a 20-step checklist that classified steps as relating to safety, accuracy, and treatment; 103 CHWs participated in follow-up assessments. Poisson regressions were used to test for associations between error count data at follow-up and Poisson regression models fit using generalized estimating equations were used to compare data across time-points. At both baseline and follow-up observations, at least 80% of CHWs correctly completed 17 of the 20 steps. CHWs being 50 years of age or older was associated with increased total errors and safety errors at baseline and follow-up. At follow-up, prior experience conducting RDTs was associated with fewer errors. Performance, as it related to the correct completion of all checklist steps and safety steps, did not decline over the 12 months and performance of accuracy steps improved (mean error ratio: 0.51; 95% CI 0.40-0.63). Visual interpretation of RDT results yielded a CHW sensitivity of 92.0% and a specificity of 97.3% when compared to interpretation by the research team. None of the characteristics investigated was found to be significantly associated with RDT interpretation. With training, most CHWs performing RDTs maintain diagnostic testing competency over at least 12 months. CHWs generally perform RDTs safely and accurately interpret results. Younger age and prior experiences with RDTs were associated with better testing performance. Future research should investigate the mode by which CHW characteristics impact RDT procedures.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 115 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 115 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 19 17%
Student > Bachelor 14 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 11%
Researcher 12 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 8%
Other 18 16%
Unknown 30 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 26 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 6%
Immunology and Microbiology 7 6%
Other 21 18%
Unknown 32 28%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 09 January 2019.
All research outputs
#3,617,517
of 23,058,939 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
#837
of 5,609 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#71,230
of 329,125 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
#18
of 105 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,058,939 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,609 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 done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 329,125 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 105 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.