↓ Skip to main content

“There is no free here, you have to pay”: actual and perceived costs as barriers to intermittent preventive treatment of malaria in pregnancy in Mali

Overview of attention for article published in Malaria Journal, March 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 (80th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
15 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
143 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
“There is no free here, you have to pay”: actual and perceived costs as barriers to intermittent preventive treatment of malaria in pregnancy in Mali
Published in
Malaria Journal, March 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12936-016-1210-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Meredith C. Klein, Steven A. Harvey, Hawa Diarra, Emily A. Hurley, Namratha Rao, Samba Diop, Seydou Doumbia

Abstract

"There is no free here," the words of a Malian husband, illustrate how perceptions of cost can deter uptake of intermittent preventive treatment of malaria in pregnancy (IPTp). The Malian Ministry of Health (MOH) recommends a minimum of three doses of IPTp at monthly intervals. However, despite a national policy that IPTp be provided free of charge, only 35 % of pregnant women receive at least one dose and less than 20 % receive two or more doses. This study explored perceptions and experiences of IPTp cost in Mali and their impact on uptake, using qualitative interviews and focus groups with pregnant women, husbands and mothers-in-law. Study team members also interviewed and observed health workers at four health centres, two in Sikasso Region and two in Koulikoro. Despite national-level policies, actual IPTp costs varied widely at study sites-between facilities, and visits. Pregnant women may pay for IPTp, receive it free, or both at different times. Health centres often charge a lump sum for antenatal care (ANC) visits that includes both free and fee-based drugs and services. This makes it difficult for women and families to distinguish between free services and those requiring payment. As a result, some forego free care that, because it is bundled with other fee-based services and medications, appears not to be free. Varying costs also complicate household budgeting for health care, particularly as women often rely on their husbands for money. Finally, while health facilities operating under the cost-recovery model strive to provide free IPTp, their own financial constraints often make this impossible. Both actual and perceived costs are currently barriers to IPTp uptake. Given the confusion around cost of services in the two study regions, more detailed national-level studies of both perceived and actual costs could help inform policy and programme decisions promoting IPTp. These studies should evaluate both quantitatively and qualitatively the cost information provided to and understood by pregnant women and their families. Meanwhile, unbundling free and fee-based services, making clear that IPTp is free, and ensuring that it is provided at no cost could help increase uptake. Free community-based distribution might be another route to increased uptake and adherence.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 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 143 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 143 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 39 27%
Researcher 21 15%
Student > Postgraduate 9 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 6%
Student > Bachelor 8 6%
Other 24 17%
Unknown 33 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 33 23%
Medicine and Dentistry 33 23%
Social Sciences 14 10%
Business, Management and Accounting 5 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 3%
Other 12 8%
Unknown 41 29%
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 29 March 2016.
All research outputs
#3,944,865
of 24,580,204 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
#885
of 5,786 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#58,468
of 305,746 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
#23
of 198 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,580,204 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 5,786 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 305,746 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 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 198 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.