↓ Skip to main content

Malaria policies versus practices, a reality check from Kinshasa, the capital of the Democratic Republic of Congo

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
157 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
Malaria policies versus practices, a reality check from Kinshasa, the capital of the Democratic Republic of Congo
Published in
BMC Public Health, April 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12889-015-1670-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hypolite Muhindo Mavoko, Gillon Ilombe, Raquel Inocêncio da Luz, Albert Kutekemeni, Jean-Pierre Van geertruyden, Pascal Lutumba

Abstract

Artemisinin-based combination therapy (ACT) following a confirmed parasitological diagnosis is recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Congolese National Malaria Control Program (NMCP). However, commitment and competence of all stakeholders (patients, medical professionals, governments and funders) is required to achieve effective case management and secure the "useful therapeutic life" of the recommended drugs. The health seeking behaviour of patients and health care professionals' practices for malaria management were assessed. This was an observational study embedded in a two-stage cluster randomized survey conducted in one health centre (HC) in each of the 12 selected health zones in Kinshasa city. All patients with clinical malaria diagnosis were eligible. Their health seeking behaviour was recorded on a specific questionnaire, as well as the health care practitioners' practices. The last were not aware that their practices would be assessed. Six hundred and twenty four patients were assessed, of whom 136 (21.8%) were under five years. Three hundred and thirty five (55%) had taken medication prior to the current consultation (self -medication with any product or visiting another HC) of whom 47(14%) took an antimalarial drug, and 56 (9%) were treated presumptively. Among those, 53.6% received monotherapy either with quinine, artesunate, phytomedicines, sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine or amodiaquine. On the other side, when clinicians were informed about laboratory results, monotherapy was prescribed in 39.9% of the confirmed malaria cases. Only 285 patients (45.7%) were managed in line with WHO and NMCP guidelines, of whom 120 (19.2%) were prescribed an ACT after positive blood smear and 165 (26.4%) received no antimalarial after a negative result. This study shows the discrepancy between malaria policies and the reality on the field in Kinshasa, regarding patients' health seeking behaviour and health professionals' practices. Consequently, the poor compliance to the policies may contribute to the genesis and spread of antimalarial drug resistance and also have a negative impact on the burden of the disease.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 157 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Burkina Faso 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 154 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 31 20%
Researcher 23 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 13%
Other 14 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 8%
Other 23 15%
Unknown 33 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 53 34%
Nursing and Health Professions 17 11%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 11 7%
Social Sciences 11 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 4%
Other 22 14%
Unknown 36 23%
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 23 September 2015.
All research outputs
#13,903,378
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#9,734
of 15,296 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#129,981
of 265,640 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#153
of 256 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% 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 265,640 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 256 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.