↓ Skip to main content

Supply-side dimensions and dynamics of integrating HIV testing and counselling into routine antenatal care: a facility assessment from Morogoro Region, Tanzania

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, October 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
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
194 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
Supply-side dimensions and dynamics of integrating HIV testing and counselling into routine antenatal care: a facility assessment from Morogoro Region, Tanzania
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, October 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12913-015-1111-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Selena J. An, Asha S. George, Amnesty E. LeFevre, Rose Mpembeni, Idda Mosha, Diwakar Mohan, Ann Yang, Joy Chebet, Chrisostom Lipingu, Abdullah H. Baqui, Japhet Killewo, Peter J. Winch, Charles Kilewo

Abstract

Integration of HIV into RMNCH (reproductive, maternal, newborn and child health) services is an important process addressing the disproportionate burden of HIV among mothers and children in sub-Saharan Africa. We assess the structural inputs and processes of care that support HIV testing and counselling in routine antenatal care to understand supply-side dynamics critical to scaling up further integration of HIV into RMNCH services prior to recent changes in HIV policy in Tanzania. This study, as a part of a maternal and newborn health program evaluation in Morogoro Region, Tanzania, drew from an assessment of health centers with 18 facility checklists, 65 quantitative and 57 qualitative provider interviews, and 203 antenatal care observations. Descriptive analyses were performed with quantitative data using Stata 12.0, and qualitative data were analyzed thematically with data managed by Atlas.ti. Limitations in structural inputs, such as infrastructure, supplies, and staffing, constrain the potential for integration of HIV testing and counselling into routine antenatal care services. While assessment of infrastructure, including waiting areas, appeared adequate, long queues and small rooms made private and confidential HIV testing and counselling difficult for individual women. Unreliable stocks of HIV test kits, essential medicines, and infection prevention equipment also had implications for provider-patient relationships, with reported decreases in women's care seeking at health centers. In addition, low staffing levels were reported to increase workloads and lower motivation for health workers. Despite adequate knowledge of counselling messages, antenatal counselling sessions were brief with incomplete messages conveyed to pregnant women. In addition, coping mechanisms, such as scheduling of clinical activities on different days, limited service availability. Antenatal care is a strategic entry point for the delivery of critical tests and counselling messages and the framing of patient-provider relations, which together underpin care seeking for the remaining continuum of care. Supply-side deficiencies in structural inputs and processes of delivering HIV testing and counselling during antenatal care indicate critical shortcomings in the quality of care provided. These must be addressed if integrating HIV testing and counselling into antenatal care is to result in improved maternal and newborn health outcomes.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Tanzania, United Republic of 1 <1%
Unknown 193 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 45 23%
Researcher 25 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 6%
Student > Postgraduate 9 5%
Other 39 20%
Unknown 45 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 46 24%
Social Sciences 29 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 27 14%
Psychology 9 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 8 4%
Other 24 12%
Unknown 51 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 04 October 2015.
All research outputs
#14,239,245
of 22,829,683 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#5,070
of 7,638 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#143,613
of 277,201 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#90
of 139 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,829,683 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,638 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% 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 277,201 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 139 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.