↓ Skip to main content

Strengthening individual capacity in monitoring and evaluation of malaria control programmes to streamline M

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

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
83 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
Strengthening individual capacity in monitoring and evaluation of malaria control programmes to streamline M&E systems and enhance information use in malaria endemic countries
Published in
Malaria Journal, May 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12936-016-1354-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ashley Garley, Erin Eckert, Ali Sie, Maurice Ye, Keziah Malm, Edwin A. Afari, Mamadou Sawadogo, Samantha Herrera, Elizabeth Ivanovich, Yazoume Ye

Abstract

Malaria control interventions in most endemic countries have intensified in recent years and so there is a need for a robust monitoring and evaluation (M&E) system to measure progress and achievements. Providing programme and M&E officers with the appropriate skills is a way to strengthen malaria's M&E systems and enhance information use for programmes' implementation. This paper describes a recent effort in capacity strengthening for malaria M&E in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). From 2010 to 2014, capacity-strengthening efforts consisted of organizing regional in-person workshops for M&E of malaria programmes for Anglophone and Francophone countries in SSA in collaboration with partners from Ghana and Burkina Faso. Open-sourced online courses were also available in English. A post-workshop assessment was conducted after 5 years to assess the effects of these regional workshops and identify gaps in capacity. The regional workshops trained 181 participants from 28 countries from 2010 to 2014. Trained participants were from ministries of health, national malaria control and elimination programmes, non-governmental organizations, and development partners. The average score (%) for participants' knowledge tests increased from pretest to posttest for Anglophone workshops (2011: 59 vs. 76, 2012: 41 vs. 63, 2013: 51 vs. 73; 2014: 50 vs. 74). Similarly, Francophone workshop posttest scores increased, but were lower than Anglophone due to higher scores at pretest. (2011: 70 vs. 76, 2012: 74 vs. 79, 2013: 61 vs. 68; 2014: 64 vs. 75). Results of the post-workshop assessment revealed that participants retained practical M&E knowledge and skills for malaria programs, but there is a need for a module on malaria surveillance adapted to the pre-elimination context. The workshops were successful because of the curriculum content, facilitation quality, and the engagement of partner institutions with training expertise. Results from the post-workshop assessment will guide the curriculum's development and restructuring for the next phase of workshops. Country-specific malaria M&E capacity needs assessments may also inform this process as countries reduce malaria burden.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 1%
Unknown 82 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 18%
Researcher 12 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 10%
Student > Bachelor 7 8%
Student > Postgraduate 6 7%
Other 11 13%
Unknown 24 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 16 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 14 17%
Social Sciences 11 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 4%
Other 10 12%
Unknown 25 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 May 2016.
All research outputs
#21,868,379
of 24,400,706 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
#5,592
of 5,827 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#300,312
of 344,329 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
#145
of 150 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,400,706 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,827 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 344,329 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 150 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.