↓ Skip to main content

Evaluation of the behaviour change communication and community mobilization activities in Myanmar artemisinin resistance containment zones

Overview of attention for article published in Malaria Journal, December 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
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
86 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
Evaluation of the behaviour change communication and community mobilization activities in Myanmar artemisinin resistance containment zones
Published in
Malaria Journal, December 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12936-015-1047-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Myat Htut Nyunt, Khin Myo Aye, Myat Phone Kyaw, Khin Thet Wai, Tin Oo, Aye Than, Htet Wai Oo, Hnin Phyu Phway, Soe Soe Han, Thurein Htun, Kyaw Kyaw San

Abstract

Behaviour change communication (BCC) can improve malaria prevention and treatment behaviour. As a one of the activities under Myanmar Artemisinin Resistance Containment (MARC) programme, BCC have been conducting. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of the behaviour change communication and community mobilization activities in MARC zones in Myanmar. A cross sectional descriptive survey was conducted in randomly selected 16 townships in Tier I and II areas of MARC zones by quantitative and qualitative approaches. In 832 households resided by 4664 people, there were 3797 bed nets. Around 54 % were untreated while 45.6 % were insecticide-treated nets (ITN) and 36.2 % were long-lasting insecticide-treated nets (LLINs). Proportion of households with at least one ITN was 625 (75.12 %), proportion of households with at least one ITN for every two peoples was 487 (58.53 %), and proportion of existing ITNs used in previous night was 1225 (70.65 %) respectively. Nearly 23 % of households had old nets while 52 % had new and unused extra bed nets reflecting the adequacy. Interestingly, 38 % could not mention the benefit of the use of ITN/LLINs. Although 88.2 % knew the disease "malaria", 11.9 % could not be able to mention the symptoms. More than 80 % provided correct responses that mosquito bite can cause malaria while only 36.9 % could mention the blood test for malaria diagnosis. Only 36.6 % received malaria information within previous year but nearly 15 % could not recognize it. Mostly, 80 % of fever episodes were treated at rural health centers (38.24 %) followed by drug shops (17.65 %) and private clinics (16.18 %) respectively. Efforts should focus on correcting misconceptions about malaria transmission, prevention and universal use of ITN/LLINs. Although BCC activities have been documented, it is still necessary to intensify community mobilization through all accessible multiple channels in MARC areas.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Unknown 85 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 16 19%
Student > Master 14 16%
Student > Bachelor 10 12%
Other 7 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 7%
Other 13 15%
Unknown 20 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 27%
Social Sciences 9 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 3%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 3%
Other 13 15%
Unknown 27 31%
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 January 2016.
All research outputs
#14,541,759
of 24,400,706 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
#3,713
of 5,827 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#197,803
of 399,812 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
#86
of 158 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,400,706 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 5,827 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. 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 399,812 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 158 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.