↓ Skip to main content

Monitoring patient care through health facility exit interviews: an assessment of the Hawthorne effect in a trial of adherence to malaria treatment guidelines in Tanzania

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Infectious Diseases, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
102 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
Monitoring patient care through health facility exit interviews: an assessment of the Hawthorne effect in a trial of adherence to malaria treatment guidelines in Tanzania
Published in
BMC Infectious Diseases, February 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12879-016-1362-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Baptiste Leurent, Hugh Reyburn, Florida Muro, Hilda Mbakilwa, David Schellenberg

Abstract

Survey of patients exiting health facilities is a common way to assess consultation practices. It is, however, unclear to what extent health professionals may change their practices when they are aware of such interviews taking place, possibly paying more attention to following recommended practices. This so-called Hawthorne effect could have important consequences for interpreting research and programme monitoring, but has rarely been assessed. A three-arm cluster-randomised trial of interventions to improve adherence to guidelines for the use of anti-malarial drugs was conducted in Tanzania. Patient interviews were conducted outside health facilities on two randomly-selected days per week. Health workers also routinely documented consultations in their ledgers. The Hawthorne effect was investigated by comparing routine data according to whether exit interviews had been conducted on three key indicators of malaria care. Adjusted logistic mixed-effects models were used, taking into account the dependencies within health facilities and calendar days. Routine data were collected on 19,579 consultations in 18 facilities. The odds of having a malaria rapid diagnostic test (RDT) result reported were 11 % higher on days when exit surveys were conducted (adjusted odds ratio 95 % CI: 0.98-1.26, p = 0.097), 17 % lower for prescribing an anti-malarial drug to patients with a negative RDT result (0.56-1.23, p = 0.343), and 27 % lower for prescribing an anti-malarial when no RDT result was reported (0.53-1.00, p = 0.052). The effect varied with time, with a U-shaped association over the study period (p < 0.001). We also observed a higher number of consultations recorded on days when exit-interviews were conducted (adjusted mean difference = 2.03, p < 0.001). Although modest, there was some suggestion of better practice by health professionals on days when exit interviews were conducted. Researchers should be aware of the potential Hawthorne effect, and take into account assessment methods when generalising findings to the 'real word' setting. This effect is, however, likely to be context dependent, and further controlled evaluation across different settings should be conducted. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01292707 . Registered on 29th January 2011.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 102 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 102 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 16 16%
Student > Bachelor 15 15%
Researcher 14 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 7%
Student > Postgraduate 6 6%
Other 22 22%
Unknown 22 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 28 27%
Nursing and Health Professions 20 20%
Social Sciences 7 7%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 3%
Other 17 17%
Unknown 24 24%
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 05 February 2016.
All research outputs
#20,303,950
of 22,842,950 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#6,473
of 7,683 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#333,923
of 397,089 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#88
of 100 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,842,950 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,683 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 397,089 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 100 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.