↓ Skip to main content

Performance and user acceptance of the Bhutan febrile and malaria information system: report from a pilot study

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

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
69 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
Performance and user acceptance of the Bhutan febrile and malaria information system: report from a pilot study
Published in
Malaria Journal, January 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12936-016-1105-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tashi Tobgay, Pema Samdrup, Thinley Jamtsho, Kylie Mannion, Leonard Ortega, Amnat Khamsiriwatchara, Ric N. Price, Kamala Thriemer, Jaranit Kaewkungwal

Abstract

Over the last decade, Bhutan has made substantial progress in controlling malaria. The country is now in an elimination phase, aiming to achieve no locally transmitted malaria by 2018. However, challenges remain and innovative control strategies are needed to overcome these. The evaluation and user acceptance of a robust surveillance tool applicable for informing malaria elimination activities is reported here. The Bhutan Febrile and Malaria Information System (BFMIS) is a combination of web-based and mobile technology that captures malariometric surveillance data and generates real time reports. The system was rolled out at six sites and data uploaded regularly for analysis. Data completeness, accuracy and data turnaround time were accessed by comparison to traditional paper based surveillance records. User acceptance and willingness for further roll out was assessed using qualitative and quantitative data. Data completeness was nearly 10 % higher using the electronic system than the paper logs, and accuracy and validity of both approaches was comparable (up to 0.05 % in valid data and up to 3.06 % inaccurate data). Data turnaround time was faster using the BFMIS. General user satisfaction with the BFMIS was high, with high willingness of health facilities to adopt the system. Qualitative interviews revealed several areas for improvement before scale up. The BFMIS had numerous advantages over the paper-based system and based on the findings of the survey the Vector-Borne Disease Control Programme has taken the decision to incorporate the BMFIS and expand its use throughout all areas at risk for malaria as a key surveillance tool.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 69 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 69 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 14 20%
Student > Master 10 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 10%
Student > Bachelor 6 9%
Lecturer 4 6%
Other 15 22%
Unknown 13 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 32%
Social Sciences 7 10%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 4%
Engineering 3 4%
Other 15 22%
Unknown 16 23%

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 18 May 2016.
All research outputs
#12,453,581
of 20,545,634 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
#3,504
of 5,251 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#178,996
of 368,487 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 20,545,634 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,251 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. 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 368,487 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them