↓ Skip to main content

Targeting indoor residual spraying for malaria using epidemiological data: a case study of the Zambia experience

Overview of attention for article published in Malaria Journal, January 2016
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 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
109 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
Targeting indoor residual spraying for malaria using epidemiological data: a case study of the Zambia experience
Published in
Malaria Journal, January 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12936-015-1073-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jessie Pinchoff, David A. Larsen, Silvia Renn, Derek Pollard, Christen Fornadel, Mark Maire, Chadwick Sikaala, Chomba Sinyangwe, Benjamin Winters, Daniel J. Bridges, Anna M. Winters

Abstract

In Zambia and other sub-Saharan African countries affected by ongoing malaria transmission, indoor residual spraying (IRS) for malaria prevention has typically been implemented over large areas, e.g., district-wide, and targeted to peri-urban areas. However, there is a recent shift in some countries, including Zambia, towards the adoption of a more strategic and targeted IRS approach, in coordination with increased emphasis on universal coverage of long-lasting insecticidal nets (LLINs) and effective insecticide resistance management. A true targeted approach would deliver IRS to sub-district areas identified as high-risk, with the goal of maximizing the prevention of malaria cases and deaths. Together with the Government of the Republic of Zambia, a new methodology was developed applying geographic information systems and satellite imagery to support a targeted IRS campaign during the 2014 spray season using health management information system data. This case study focuses on the developed methodology while also highlighting the significant research gaps which must be filled to guide countries on the most effective strategy for IRS targeting in the context of universal LLIN coverage and evolving insecticide resistance.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 109 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Ghana 1 <1%
Unknown 106 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 29 27%
Student > Master 14 13%
Student > Bachelor 12 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 7%
Student > Postgraduate 6 6%
Other 23 21%
Unknown 17 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 27 25%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 9%
Social Sciences 6 6%
Environmental Science 5 5%
Other 24 22%
Unknown 25 23%

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 09 January 2016.
All research outputs
#3,601,377
of 7,159,230 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
#1,628
of 2,402 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#158,801
of 305,772 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
#113
of 180 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 7,159,230 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,402 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.8. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% 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 305,772 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 180 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.