↓ Skip to main content

The complexities of simple technologies: re-imagining the role of rapid diagnostic tests in malaria control efforts

Overview of attention for article published in Malaria Journal, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (83rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
10 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
54 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
110 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
The complexities of simple technologies: re-imagining the role of rapid diagnostic tests in malaria control efforts
Published in
Malaria Journal, February 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12936-016-1083-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Uli Beisel, René Umlauf, Eleanor Hutchinson, Clare I. R. Chandler

Abstract

Malaria rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) are assumed to be simple-to-use and mobile technologies that have the capacity to standardize parasitological diagnosis for malaria across a variety of clinical settings. In order to evaluate these tests, it is important to consider how such assumptions play out in practice, in everyday settings of clinics, health centres, drug stores and for community health volunteers. This paper draws on qualitative research on RDTs conducted over the last nine years. In particular the study reports on four qualitative case studies on the use of RDTs from Uganda, Tanzania and Sierra Leone, including qualitative interviews, focus group discussions and participant observation. Results suggest that while RDTs may be simple to use as stand-alone technological tools, it is not trivial to make them work effectively in a variety of economically pressured health care settings. The studies show that to perform RDTs effectively might very well need exactly the infrastructure they were designed to substitute: the medical expertise, organizational capacity and diagnostic and treatment options of well-funded and functioning health systems. These results underline that successful malaria diagnosis and treatment requires as much investment in general health infrastructure as it does in new technologies.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 110 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 3%
United States 1 <1%
Madagascar 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Unknown 104 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 23 21%
Student > Master 21 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 15%
Student > Bachelor 12 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 4%
Other 12 11%
Unknown 21 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 28 25%
Medicine and Dentistry 13 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 7%
Design 5 5%
Other 20 18%
Unknown 25 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 10 October 2019.
All research outputs
#3,894,061
of 23,925,854 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
#912
of 5,755 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#67,028
of 404,020 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
#23
of 190 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,925,854 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,755 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its peers.
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 404,020 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 190 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.