↓ Skip to main content

Community perceptions of mass screening and treatment for malaria in Siaya County, western Kenya

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

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

1 policy source
3 tweeters


15 Dimensions

Readers on

129 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.
Community perceptions of mass screening and treatment for malaria in Siaya County, western Kenya
Published in
Malaria Journal, February 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12936-016-1123-y
Pubmed ID

Kathryn Shuford, Florence Were, Norbert Awino, Aaron Samuels, Peter Ouma, Simon Kariuki, Meghna Desai, Denise Roth Allen


Intermittent mass screening and treatment (iMSaT) is currently being evaluated as a possible additional tool for malaria control and prevention in western Kenya. The literature identifying success and/or barriers to drug trial compliance and acceptability on malaria treatment and control interventions is considerable, especially as it relates to specific target groups, such as school-aged children and pregnant women, but there is a lack of such studies for mass screening and treatment and mass drug administration in the general population. A qualitative study was conducted to explore community perceptions of the iMSaT intervention, and specifically of testing and treatment in the absence of symptoms, before and after implementation in order to identify aspects of iMSaT that should be improved in future rounds. Two rounds of qualitative data collection were completed in six randomly selected study communities: a total of 36 focus group discussions (FGDs) with men, women, and opinion leaders, and 12 individual or small group interviews with community health workers. All interviews were conducted in the local dialect Dholuo, digitally recorded, and transcribed into English. English transcripts were imported into the qualitative software programme NVivo8 for content analysis. There were mixed opinions of the intervention. In the pre-implementation round, respondents were generally positive and willing to participate in the upcoming study. However, there were concerns about testing in the absence of symptoms including fear of covert HIV testing and issues around blood sampling. There were fewer concerns about treatment, mostly because of the simpler dosing regimen of the study drug (dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine) compared to the current first-line treatment (artemether-lumefantrine). After the first implementation round, there was a clear shift in perceptions with less common concerns overall, although some of the same issues around testing and general misconceptions about research remained. Although iMSaT was generally accepted throughout the community, proper sensitization activities-and arguably, a more long-term approach to community engagement-are necessary for dispelling fears, clarifying misconceptions, and educating communities on the consequences of asymptomatic malaria.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 129 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 2%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 125 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 27 21%
Researcher 23 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 11%
Student > Bachelor 9 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 5%
Other 20 16%
Unknown 30 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 29 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 10%
Social Sciences 13 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 5%
Psychology 7 5%
Other 22 17%
Unknown 38 29%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 01 May 2017.
All research outputs
of 14,542,042 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
of 4,174 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 340,322 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,542,042 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,174 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 340,322 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 75% 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