↓ Skip to main content

The feasibility of task-sharing the identification, emergency treatment, and referral for women with pre-eclampsia by community health workers in India

Overview of attention for article published in Reproductive Health, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
197 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
The feasibility of task-sharing the identification, emergency treatment, and referral for women with pre-eclampsia by community health workers in India
Published in
Reproductive Health, June 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12978-018-0532-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Umesh Charanthimath, Marianne Vidler, Geetanjali Katageri, Umesh Ramadurg, Chandrashekhar Karadiguddi, Avinash Kavi, Anjali Joshi, Geetanjali Mungarwadi, Sheshidhar Bannale, Sangamesh Rakaraddi, Diane Sawchuck, Rahat Qureshi, Sumedha Sharma, Beth A. Payne, Peter von Dadelszen, Richard Derman, Laura A. Magee, Shivaprasad Goudar, Ashalata Mallapur, Mrutyunjaya Bellad, and the Community Level Interventions for Pre-eclampsia (CLIP) India Feasibility Working Group, Zulfiqar Bhutta, Sheela Naik, Anis Mulla, Namdev Kamle, Vaibhav Dhamanekar, Sharla K. Drebit, Chirag Kariya, Tang Lee, Jing Li, Mansun Lui, Asif R. Khowaja, Domena K. Tu, Amit Revankar

Abstract

Hypertensive disorders are the second highest direct obstetric cause of maternal death after haemorrhage, accounting for 14% of maternal deaths globally. Pregnancy hypertension contributes to maternal deaths, particularly in low- and middle-income countries, due to a scarcity of doctors providing evidence-based emergency obstetric care. Task-sharing some obstetric responsibilities may help to reduce the mortality rates. This study was conducted to assess acceptability by the community and other healthcare providers, for task-sharing by community health workers (CHW) in the identification and initial care in hypertensive disorders in pregnancy. This study was conducted in two districts of Karnataka state in south India. A total of 14 focus group discussions were convened with various community representatives: women of reproductive age (N = 6), male decision-makers (N = 2), female decision-makers (N = 3), and community leaders (N = 3). One-to-one interviews were held with medical officers (N = 2), private healthcare OBGYN specialists (N = 2), senior health administrators (N = 2), Taluka (county) health officers (N = 2), and obstetricians (N = 4). All data collection was facilitated by local researchers familiar with the setting and language. Data were subsequently transcribed, translated and analysed thematically using NVivo 10 software. There was strong community support for home visits by CHW to measure the blood pressure of pregnant women; however, respondents were concerned about their knowledge, training and effectiveness. The treatment with oral antihypertensive agents and magnesium sulphate in emergencies was accepted by community representatives but medical practitioners and health administrators had reservations, and insisted on emergency transport to a higher facility. The most important barriers for task-sharing were concerns regarding insufficient training, limited availability of medications, the questionable validity of blood pressure devices, and the ability of CHW to correctly diagnose and intervene in cases of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy. Task-sharing to community-based health workers has potential to facilitate early diagnosis of the hypertensive disorders of pregnancy and assist in the provision of emergency care. We identified some facilitators and barriers for successful task-sharing of emergency obstetric care aimed at reducing mortality and morbidity due to hypertensive disorders of pregnancy.

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 197 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 197 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 29 15%
Researcher 22 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 13 7%
Student > Postgraduate 10 5%
Other 34 17%
Unknown 70 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 38 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 33 17%
Social Sciences 19 10%
Engineering 5 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 2%
Other 14 7%
Unknown 85 43%
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 13 July 2018.
All research outputs
#13,265,775
of 23,092,602 outputs
Outputs from Reproductive Health
#935
of 1,426 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#161,999
of 328,678 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Reproductive Health
#42
of 47 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,092,602 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,426 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.1. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% 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 328,678 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 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 47 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.