↓ Skip to main content

Impact of an integrated community case management programme on uptake of appropriate diarrhoea and pneumonia treatments in Uganda: A propensity score matching and equity analysis study

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal for Equity in Health, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
93 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 an integrated community case management programme on uptake of appropriate diarrhoea and pneumonia treatments in Uganda: A propensity score matching and equity analysis study
Published in
International Journal for Equity in Health, September 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12939-015-0202-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Agnes Nanyonjo, James Ssekitooleko, Helen Counihan, Frederick Makumbi, Göran Tomson, Karin Källander

Abstract

Pneumonia and diarrhoea disproportionately affect children in resource-poor settings. Integrated community case management (iCCM) involves community health workers treating diarrhoea, pneumonia and malaria. Studies on impact of iCCM on appropriate treatment and its effects on equity in access to the same are limited. The objective of this study was to measure the impact of integrated community case management (iCCM) as the first point of care on uptake of appropriate treatment for children with a classification of pneumonia (cough and fast breathing) and/or diarrhoea and to measure the magnitude and distribution of socioeconomic status related inequality in use of iCCM. Following introduction of iCCM, data from cross-sectional household surveys were examined for socioeconomic inequalities in uptake of treatment and use of iCCM among children with a classification of pneumonia or diarrhoea using the Erreygers' corrected concentration index (CCI). Propensity score matching methods were used to estimate the average treatment effects on the treated (ATT) for children treated under the iCCM programme with recommended antibiotics for pneumonia, and ORS plus or minus zinc for diarrhoea. Overall, more children treated under iCCM received appropriate antibiotics for pneumonia (ATT = 34.7 %, p < 0.001) and ORS for diarrhoea (ATT = 41.2 %, p < 0.001) compared to children not attending iCCM. No such increase was observed for children receiving ORS-zinc combination (ATT = -0.145, p < 0.05). There were no obvious inequalities in the uptake of appropriate treatment for pneumonia among the poorest and least poor (CCI = -0.070; SE = 0.083). Receiving ORS for diarrhoea was more prevalent among the least poor groups (CCI = 0.199; SE = 0.118). The use of iCCM for pneumonia was more prevalent among the poorest groups (CCI = -0.099; SE = 0.073). The use of iCCM for diarrhoea was not significantly different among the poorest and least poor (CCI = -0.073; SE = 0.085). iCCM is a potentially equitable strategy that significantly increased the uptake of appropriate antibiotic treatment for pneumonia and ORS for diarrhoea, but not the uptake of zinc for diarrhoea. For maximum impact, interventions increasing zinc uptake should be considered when scaling up iCCM programmes.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 93 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Sierra Leone 1 1%
Uganda 1 1%
Unknown 90 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 22 24%
Student > Master 13 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 8%
Student > Postgraduate 6 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 6%
Other 18 19%
Unknown 21 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 31 33%
Social Sciences 15 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 2%
Other 7 8%
Unknown 27 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 05 September 2015.
All research outputs
#20,290,425
of 22,826,360 outputs
Outputs from International Journal for Equity in Health
#1,849
of 1,902 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#224,273
of 267,016 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal for Equity in Health
#29
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,826,360 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,902 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.2. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 267,016 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.