↓ Skip to main content

Programme level implementation of malaria rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) use: outcomes and cost of training health workers at lower level health care facilities in Uganda

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, April 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
101 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
Programme level implementation of malaria rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) use: outcomes and cost of training health workers at lower level health care facilities in Uganda
Published in
BMC Public Health, April 2012
DOI 10.1186/1471-2458-12-291
Pubmed ID
Authors

Daniel J Kyabayinze, Caroline Asiimwe, Damalie Nakanjako, Jane Nabakooza, Moses Bajabaite, Clare Strachan, James K Tibenderana, Jean Pierre Van Geetruyden

Abstract

The training of health workers in the use of malaria rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) is an important component of a wider strategy to improve parasite-based malaria diagnosis at lower level health care facilities (LLHFs) where microscopy is not readily available for all patients with suspected malaria. This study describes the process and cost of training to attain competence of lower level health workers to perform malaria RDTs in a public health system setting in eastern Uganda.

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 101 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 2 2%
Indonesia 1 <1%
Mali 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 96 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 21 21%
Researcher 18 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 11%
Student > Bachelor 10 10%
Student > Postgraduate 8 8%
Other 14 14%
Unknown 19 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 34 34%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 10%
Social Sciences 8 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 6 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 4%
Other 19 19%
Unknown 20 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 09 April 2021.
All research outputs
#6,911,928
of 22,664,644 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#7,267
of 14,744 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#47,494
of 161,584 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#85
of 190 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,664,644 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,744 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.9. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% 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 161,584 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 68% 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 gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.