↓ Skip to main content

Evaluating the impact of screening plus eave tubes on malaria transmission compared to current best practice in central Côte d’Ivoire: a two armed cluster randomized controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, July 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 (81st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
30 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
153 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
Evaluating the impact of screening plus eave tubes on malaria transmission compared to current best practice in central Côte d’Ivoire: a two armed cluster randomized controlled trial
Published in
BMC Public Health, July 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12889-018-5746-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Eleanore D. Sternberg, Jackie Cook, Ludovic P. Ahoua Alou, Carine J. Aoura, Serge Brice Assi, Dimi Théodore Doudou, A. Alphonsine Koffi, Raphael N’Guessan, Welbeck A. Oumbouke, Rachel A. Smith, Eve Worrall, Immo Kleinschmidt, Matthew B. Thomas

Abstract

Access to long-lasting insecticidal nets (LLINs) has increased and malaria has decreased globally, but malaria transmission remains high in parts of sub-Saharan Africa and insecticide resistance threatens current progress. Eave tubes are a new tool for the targeted delivery of insecticides against mosquitoes attempting to enter houses. The primary objective of this trial is to test whether screening plus eave tubes (SET) provides protection against malaria, on top of universal coverage with LLINs in an area of intense pyrethroid resistance. The trial will also assess acceptability and cost-effectiveness of the intervention. A two-armed, cluster randomized controlled trial will be conducted to evaluate the effect of SET on clinical malaria incidence in children living in central Côte d'Ivoire. Forty villages will be selected based on population size and the proportion of houses suitable for modification with SET. Using restricted randomization, half the villages will be assigned to the treatment arm (SET + LLINs) and the remainder will be assigned to the control arm (LLINs only). In both arms, LLINs will be distributed and in the treatment arm, householders will be offered SET. Fifty children aged six months to eight years old will be enrolled from randomly selected households in each of the 40 villages. Cohorts will be cleared of malaria parasites at the start of the study and one year after recruitment, and will be monitored for clinical malaria case incidence by active case detection over two years. Mosquito densities will be assessed using CDC light traps and human landing catches and a subset of Anopheles mosquitoes will be examined for parity status and tested for sporozoite infection. Acceptability of SET will be monitored using surveys and focus groups. Cost-effectiveness analysis will measure the incremental cost per case averted and per disability-adjusted life year (DALY) averted of adding SET to LLINs. Economic and financial costs will be estimated from societal and provider perspective using standard economic evaluation methods. This study will be the first evaluation of the epidemiological impact of SET. Trial findings will show whether SET is a viable, cost-effective technology for malaria control in Côte d'Ivoire and possibly elsewhere. ISRCTN18145556 , registered on 01 February 2017 - retrospectively registered.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 153 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 24 16%
Researcher 18 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 9%
Student > Bachelor 11 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 5%
Other 22 14%
Unknown 56 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 18 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 17 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 16 10%
Social Sciences 10 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 3%
Other 32 21%
Unknown 55 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 16 March 2021.
All research outputs
#2,944,693
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#3,371
of 15,296 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#59,990
of 330,068 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#104
of 334 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 15,296 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 330,068 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 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 334 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 68% of its contemporaries.