↓ Skip to main content

Health workers’ compliance to rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) to guide malaria treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis

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
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
80 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
241 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
Health workers’ compliance to rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) to guide malaria treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Published in
Malaria Journal, March 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12936-016-1218-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alinune N. Kabaghe, Benjamin J. Visser, Rene Spijker, Kamija S. Phiri, Martin P. Grobusch, Michèle van Vugt

Abstract

The World Health Organization recommends malaria to be confirmed by either microscopy or a rapid diagnostic test (RDT) before treatment. The correct use of RDTs in resource-limited settings facilitates basing treatment onto a confirmed diagnosis; contributes to speeding up considering a correct alternative diagnosis, and prevents overprescription of anti-malarial drugs, reduces costs and avoids unnecessary exposure to adverse drug effects. This review aims to evaluate health workers' compliance to RDT results and factors contributing to compliance. A PROSPERO-registered systematic review was conducted to evaluate health workers' compliance to RDTs in sub-Saharan Africa, following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Studies published up to November 2015 were searched without language restrictions in Medline/Ovid, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, LILACS, Biosis Previews and the African Index Medicus. The primary outcome was health workers treating patients according to the RDT results obtained. The literature search identified 474 reports; 14 studies were eligible and included in the quantitative analysis. From the meta-analysis, health workers' overall compliance in terms of initiating treatment or not in accordance with the respective RDT results was 83 % (95 % CI 80-86 %). Compliance to positive and negative results was 97 % (95 % CI 94-99 %) and 78 % (95 % CI 66-89 %), respectively. Community health workers had higher compliance rates to negative test results than clinicians. Patient expectations, work experience, scepticism of results, health workers' cadres and perceived effectiveness of the test, influenced compliance. With regard to published data, compliance to RDT appears to be generally fair in sub-Saharan Africa; compliance to negative results will need to improve to prevent mismanagement of patients and overprescribing of anti-malarial drugs. Improving diagnostic capacity for other febrile illnesses and developing local evidence-based guidelines may help improve compliance and management of negative RDT results. CRD42015016151 (PROSPERO).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 241 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Nigeria 1 <1%
Unknown 240 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 55 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 28 12%
Researcher 25 10%
Student > Postgraduate 17 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 15 6%
Other 49 20%
Unknown 52 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 75 31%
Nursing and Health Professions 26 11%
Social Sciences 15 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 13 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 12 5%
Other 40 17%
Unknown 60 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 12 April 2021.
All research outputs
#5,662,297
of 22,856,968 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
#1,452
of 5,573 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#79,586
of 299,392 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
#36
of 193 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,856,968 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,573 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. 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 299,392 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 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 193 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.