↓ Skip to main content

Adherence to prenatal iron-folic acid supplementation in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC): a protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, 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)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
3 X users
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
151 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
Adherence to prenatal iron-folic acid supplementation in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC): a protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis
Published in
Systematic Reviews, July 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13643-018-0774-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mohammed Akibu, Tesfalidet Tekelab, Abdella Amano, Merga Besho, Stephanie Grutzmacher, Mesfin Tadese, Tesfa Dejenie Habtewold

Abstract

Daily iron-folic acid supplementation reduces anemia and various adverse obstetric outcomes such as preterm delivery, low birthweight, hemorrhage, and perinatal and maternal morbidity and mortality. However, its supplementation has not been successful that attributed to several determinants including poor adherence. Therefore, we aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis on the prevalence and determinants of adherence to prenatal iron-folic acid supplementation in low- and middle-income countries. In addition, we will develop a conceptual framework in the context of low- and middle-income countries (LMIC). We will search PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, EBSCO, Web of Science, SCOPUS, WHO Global Index Medicus, and African Journals Online (AJOL) databases to retrieve relevant literatures. Observational (i.e., case-control, cohort, cross-sectional, survey, and surveillance reports) and quasi-randomized and randomized controlled trial studies conducted in LMIC will be included. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) and Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal checklist will be used to assess the quality of observational and randomized controlled trial studies respectively. The pooled prevalence and odds ratio of determinants of adherence will be generated using a weighted inverse-variance meta-analysis model. Statistical heterogeneity among studies will be assessed by Cochran's Q χ2 statistics and Higgins (I2 statistics) method. The result will be presented using forest plots and Harvest plots when necessary. Furthermore, we will perform Jackknife sensitivity and subgroup analysis. Data will be analyzed using comprehensive meta-analysis software (version 2). Contemporary evidence about the prevalence and determinants of adherence in LMIC will be synthesized to generate up-to-date knowledge. To our knowledge, this is the first systematic review. It would have substantial implications for researchers, clinicians, and policymakers for optimizing maternal and child health outcomes in LMIC. The protocol has been registered on International Prospective Register of Systematic Review (PROSPERO), University of York Center for Reviews and Dissemination ( https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/ ), registration number CRD42017080245 .

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 151 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 19 13%
Student > Bachelor 18 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 9%
Student > Postgraduate 13 9%
Researcher 12 8%
Other 26 17%
Unknown 49 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 29 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 29 19%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 7 5%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 5 3%
Other 16 11%
Unknown 58 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 27 February 2019.
All research outputs
#2,914,625
of 23,096,849 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#539
of 2,010 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#60,690
of 330,303 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#21
of 49 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,096,849 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 2,010 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 330,303 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 49 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 57% of its contemporaries.