↓ Skip to main content

Systems, supplies, and staff: a mixed-methods study of health care workers’ experiences and health facility preparedness during a large national cholera outbreak, Kenya 2015

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, June 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 (71st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

policy
2 policy sources

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
119 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
Systems, supplies, and staff: a mixed-methods study of health care workers’ experiences and health facility preparedness during a large national cholera outbreak, Kenya 2015
Published in
BMC Public Health, June 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12889-018-5584-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kathryn G. Curran, Emma Wells, Samuel J. Crowe, Rupa Narra, Jared Oremo, Waqo Boru, Jane Githuku, Mark Obonyo, Kevin M. De Cock, Joel M. Montgomery, Lyndah Makayotto, Daniel Langat, Sara A. Lowther, Ciara O’Reilly, Zeinab Gura, Jackson Kioko

Abstract

From December 2014 to September 2016, a cholera outbreak in Kenya, the largest since 2010, caused 16,840 reported cases and 256 deaths. The outbreak affected 30 of Kenya's 47 counties and occurred shortly after the decentralization of many healthcare services to the county level. This mixed-methods study, conducted June-July 2015, assessed cholera preparedness in Homa Bay, Nairobi, and Mombasa counties and explored clinic- and community-based health care workers' (HCW) experiences during outbreak response. Counties were selected based on cumulative cholera burden and geographic characteristics. We conducted 44 health facility cholera preparedness checklists (according to national guidelines) and 8 focus group discussions (FGDs). Frequencies from preparedness checklists were generated. To determine key themes from FGDs, inductive and deductive codes were applied; MAX software for qualitative data analysis (MAXQDA) was used to identify patterns. Some facilities lacked key materials for treating cholera patients, diagnosing cases, and maintaining infection control. Overall, 82% (36/44) of health facilities had oral rehydration salts, 65% (28/43) had IV fluids, 27% (12/44) had rectal swabs, 11% (5/44) had Cary-Blair transport media, and 86% (38/44) had gloves. A considerable number of facilities lacked disease reporting forms (34%, 14/41) and cholera treatment guidelines (37%, 16/43). In FDGs, HCWs described confusion regarding roles and reporting during the outbreak, which highlighted issues in coordination and management structures within the health system. Similar to checklist findings, FGD participants described supply challenges affecting laboratory preparedness and infection prevention and control. Perceived successes included community engagement, health education, strong collaboration between clinic and community HCWs, and HCWs' personal passion to help others. The confusion over roles, reporting, and management found in this evaluation highlights a need to adapt, implement, and communicate health strategies at the county level, in order to inform and train HCWs during health system transformations. International, national, and county stakeholders could strengthen preparedness and response for cholera and other public health emergencies in Kenya, and thereby strengthen global health security, through further investment in the existing Integrated Disease Surveillance and Response structure and national cholera prevention and control plan, and the adoption of county-specific cholera control plans.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 119 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 119 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 23 19%
Researcher 15 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 8%
Student > Bachelor 9 8%
Other 15 13%
Unknown 36 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 24 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 17 14%
Social Sciences 7 6%
Engineering 6 5%
Immunology and Microbiology 4 3%
Other 22 18%
Unknown 39 33%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 01 January 2021.
All research outputs
#3,830,959
of 18,942,198 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#4,311
of 12,531 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#80,269
of 289,289 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#5
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,942,198 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,531 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.2. 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 289,289 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 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.