↓ Skip to main content

Intermittent screening and treatment or intermittent preventive treatment compared to current policy of single screening and treatment for the prevention of malaria in pregnancy in Eastern Indonesia…

Overview of attention for article published in Malaria Journal, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
242 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
Intermittent screening and treatment or intermittent preventive treatment compared to current policy of single screening and treatment for the prevention of malaria in pregnancy in Eastern Indonesia: acceptability among health providers and pregnant women
Published in
Malaria Journal, September 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12936-018-2490-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jenna Hoyt, Chandra U R Landuwulang, Ansariadi, Rukhsana Ahmed, Faustina H Burdam, Irene Bonsapia, Jeanne R Poespoprodjo, Din Syafruddin, Feiko O ter Kuile, Jayne Webster, Jenny Hill

Abstract

The control of malaria in pregnancy in much of Asia relies on screening asymptomatic women for malaria infection, followed by passive case detection and prevention with insecticide-treated nets. In 2012, Indonesia introduced screening for malaria by microscopy or rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) at pregnant women's first antenatal care (ANC) visit to detect and treat malaria infections regardless of the presence of symptoms. Acceptability among health providers and pregnant women of the current 'single screen and treat' (SSTp) strategy compared to two alternative strategies that were intermittent preventive treatment (IPTp) and intermittent screening and treatment (ISTp) was assessed in the context of a clinical trial in two malaria endemic provinces of Eastern Indonesia. Qualitative data were collected through in-depth interviews with 121 health providers working in provision of antenatal care, heads of health facilities and District Health Office staff. Trial staff were also interviewed. Focus group discussions were conducted with 16 groups of pregnant women (N = 106) to discuss their experiences of each intervention in the trial. Health providers and pregnant women were receptive to screening for malaria at every ANC visit due to the increased opportunity to detect and treat asymptomatic infections. A primary concern for providers was the accuracy and availability of RDTs used for screening in the SSTp and ISTp arms, which they considered less accurate than microscopy. Providers had reservations about giving anti-malarials presumptively as IPTp, due to concerns of causing potential harm to mother and baby and as a possible driver of drug resistance. Pregnant women were accepting of all three interventions. Women in the IPTp arm were happy to take anti-malarials presumptively to protect themselves and their babies against malaria. The findings indicate that, within a trial context, malaria screening of pregnant women at every ANC visit ISTp was an acceptable strategy among both health providers and pregnant women owing to an existing culture of screening and treatment. The adoption of IPTp however would require a considerable shift in health provider attitudes and a clear communication strategy. By contrast, pregnant women welcomed the opportunity to prevent malaria infections during pregnancy.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 242 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Lecturer 33 14%
Researcher 29 12%
Student > Master 29 12%
Student > Bachelor 16 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 4%
Other 34 14%
Unknown 91 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 53 22%
Medicine and Dentistry 34 14%
Social Sciences 10 4%
Design 7 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 2%
Other 36 15%
Unknown 96 40%
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 28 September 2018.
All research outputs
#17,991,384
of 23,105,443 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
#4,902
of 5,617 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#244,306
of 341,808 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
#120
of 126 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,105,443 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,617 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% 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 341,808 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 126 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.