↓ Skip to main content

Impact of geographic distance on appraisal delay for active TB treatment seeking in Uganda: a network analysis of the Kawempe Community Health Cohort Study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public 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
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
75 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
Impact of geographic distance on appraisal delay for active TB treatment seeking in Uganda: a network analysis of the Kawempe Community Health Cohort Study
Published in
BMC Public Health, June 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12889-018-5648-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kyle Fluegge, LaShaunda L. Malone, Mary Nsereko, Brenda Okware, Christian Wejse, Hussein Kisingo, Ezekiel Mupere, W. Henry Boom, Catherine M. Stein

Abstract

Appraisal delay is the time a patient takes to consider a symptom as not only noticeable, but a sign of illness. The study's objective was to determine the association between appraisal delay in seeking tuberculosis (TB) treatment and geographic distance measured by network travel (driving and pedestrian) time (in minutes) and distance (Euclidean and self-reported) (in kilometers) and to identify other risk factors from selected covariates and how they modify the core association between delay and distance. This was part of a longitudinal cohort study known as the Kawempe Community Health Study based in Kampala, Uganda. The study enrolled households from April 2002 to July 2012. Multivariable interval regression with multiplicative heteroscedasticity was used to assess the impact of time and distance on delay. The delay interval outcome was defined using a comprehensive set of 28 possible self-reported symptoms. The main independent variables were network travel time (in minutes) and Euclidean distance (in kilometers). Other covariates were organized according to the Andersen utilization conceptual framework. A total of 838 patients with both distance and delay data were included in the network analysis. Bivariate analyses did not reveal a significant association of any distance metric with the delay outcome. However, adjusting for patient characteristics and cavitary disease status, the multivariable model indicated that each minute of driving time to the clinic significantly (p = 0.02) and positively predicted 0.25 days' delay. At the median distance value of 47 min, this represented an additional delay of about 12 (95% CI: [3, 21]) days to the mean of 40 days (95% CI: [25, 56]). Increasing Euclidean distance significantly predicted (p = 0.02) reduced variance in the delay outcome, thereby increasing precision of the mean delay estimate. At the median Euclidean distance of 2.8 km, the variance in the delay was reduced by more than 25%. Of the four geographic distance measures, network travel driving time was a better and more robust predictor of mean delay in this setting. Including network travel driving time with other risk factors may be important in identifying populations especially vulnerable to delay.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 75 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 13%
Student > Master 9 12%
Student > Bachelor 9 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 5%
Other 12 16%
Unknown 24 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 8%
Social Sciences 5 7%
Immunology and Microbiology 4 5%
Unspecified 3 4%
Other 12 16%
Unknown 28 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 July 2018.
All research outputs
#14,418,409
of 23,092,602 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#10,476
of 15,054 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#186,815
of 329,072 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#263
of 321 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,092,602 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 15,054 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.0. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% 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 329,072 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 321 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.