↓ Skip to main content

Oral artemisinin monotherapy removal from the private sector in Eastern Myanmar between 2012 and 2014

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

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (65th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
48 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
Oral artemisinin monotherapy removal from the private sector in Eastern Myanmar between 2012 and 2014
Published in
Malaria Journal, May 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12936-016-1292-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hnin Su Su Khin, Tin Aung, Aung Thi, Chris White

Abstract

In 2012 the Artemisinin Monotherapy Therapy Replacement (AMTR) project was implemented in Eastern Myanmar to increase access to subsidized, quality-assured artemisinin combination therapy (ACT) and to remove oral artemisinin monotherapy (AMT) from the private sector. The aim of this paper is to examine changes over time in the private sector anti-malarial landscape and to illustrate the value of complementary interventions in the context of a national ACT subsidy. Three rounds of cross-sectional malaria medicine outlet surveys were conducted, in 2012, 2013 and 2014. Project intervention areas were selected from the Myanmar Artemisinin Resistance Containment (MARC) area. Provider detailing was implemented in these selected areas. Comparison areas were selected outside of this catchment area, from townships in close proximity to the MARC framework. Within each domain, multi-staged sampling was used to select areas for the survey. Outlets with the potential to sell or distribute anti-malarials in the private sector were screened for eligibility. The total number of outlets approached for an interview was as follows in the intervention and comparison areas, respectively: 2012, N = 2046 and 1612; 2013, N = 1636 and 1884; 2014, N = 2939 and 2941. The percentage of pharmacies, general retailers and mobile providers (classed as 'priority outlets') with oral AMT in stock on the day of the survey decreased over time in the intervention areas (2012 = 68 %; 2013 = 48 %; 2014 = 10 %). Conversely, quality-assured ACT availability increased among these outlets (2012 = 4 %; 2013 = 62 %; 2014 = 79 %). Relative oral AMT market share among priority outlets also decreased over time (2012 = 44 %; 2013 = 18 %; 2014 = 14 %), while market share of quality-assured ACT increased (2012 = 3 %; 2013 = 59 %; 2014 = 51 %). Among priority outlets in the comparison area, similar trends were observed, though changes over time were less substantial compared to the intervention area. Other outlet types (community health workers and health facilities) performed relatively well over time though modest improvements were also observed. The findings point to the successful design and implementation of a strategy to rapidly remove oral AMT from pharmacies, general retailers and mobile providers and to replace its use with quality-assured ACT. The evidence also highlights the importance of supporting interventions in the context of a high-level subsidy.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 48 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 48 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 19%
Student > Master 8 17%
Researcher 6 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 8%
Student > Postgraduate 4 8%
Other 5 10%
Unknown 12 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 23%
Social Sciences 6 13%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 6%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 4%
Other 10 21%
Unknown 13 27%
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 02 June 2016.
All research outputs
#7,937,567
of 24,835,287 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
#2,231
of 5,816 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#117,443
of 340,509 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
#47
of 157 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,835,287 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,816 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 gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% 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 340,509 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 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 157 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 69% of its contemporaries.