↓ Skip to main content

Community health worker support to improve HIV treatment outcomes for older children and adolescents in Zimbabwe: a process evaluation of the ZENITH trial

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, May 2018
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 (83rd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
125 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
Community health worker support to improve HIV treatment outcomes for older children and adolescents in Zimbabwe: a process evaluation of the ZENITH trial
Published in
Implementation Science, May 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13012-018-0762-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chido Dziva Chikwari, Victoria Simms, Joanna Busza, Ethel Dauya, Tsitsi Bandason, Prosper Chonzi, Shungu Munyati, Hilda Mujuru, Rashida A. Ferrand

Abstract

Community health worker (CHW)-delivered support visits to children living with HIV and their caregivers significantly reduced odds of virological failure among the children in the ZENITH trial conducted in Zimbabwe. We conducted a process evaluation to assess fidelity, acceptability, and feasibility of this intervention to identify lessons that could inform replication and scale-up of this approach. Field manuals kept by each CHW, records from monthly supervisory meetings, and participant data collected throughout the trial were used to assess the intervention's implementation. Data extracted from field manuals included visit type, content, and duration. Minutes from monthly supervisory meetings were used to capture CHW attendance. The trial enrolled 172 participants in the intervention arm of whom 5 subsequently refused all visits, 1 died before the intervention could be delivered, and 1 could not be located. Manuals for 8 participants were not returned, 3 were incorrectly entered, and 1 manual was lost. We had 154 manuals available for analysis. A total of 1553 visits were successfully conducted (median 11 per participant, range 1-20). Additionally, CHWs made 85 visits where they were unable to make contact with the family. Thirteen (8.4%) participants received 5 or fewer visits, 10 moved out of the study area, and 3 died. CHWs discussed disclosure with the child/family for over 89% of participants and assisted clients with developing and reviewing their personal treatment plan with over 85% of participants. Of the 20 CHWs (3 male, 17 female) selected to implement the intervention, 19 were retained at the end of the trial. The intervention was acceptable to participants with most receiving and accepting the required number of visits. Key strenghts were high staff retention and fidelity to the intervention. This community-based intervention was an acceptable and feasible approach to reduce virological failure among children living with HIV. The ZENITH trial was registered on 25 October 2012 in the Pan African Clinical Trials Registry under the trial registration number PACTR201212000442288 . It can be found at http://www.pactr.org/ATMWeb/appmanager/atm/atmregistry?dar=true&tNo=PACTR201212000442288 .

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 125 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 125 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 19 15%
Researcher 18 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 6%
Other 7 6%
Student > Bachelor 6 5%
Other 22 18%
Unknown 45 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 30 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 18 14%
Social Sciences 8 6%
Psychology 5 4%
Immunology and Microbiology 4 3%
Other 11 9%
Unknown 49 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 04 March 2019.
All research outputs
#2,603,312
of 23,070,218 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#585
of 1,725 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#55,698
of 330,223 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#16
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,070,218 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,725 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% 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 330,223 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 38 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its contemporaries.