↓ Skip to main content

Using mobile health technology and community health workers to identify and refer caesarean-related surgical site infections in rural Rwanda: a randomised controlled trial protocol

Overview of attention for article published in BMJ Open, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
168 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
Using mobile health technology and community health workers to identify and refer caesarean-related surgical site infections in rural Rwanda: a randomised controlled trial protocol
Published in
BMJ Open, May 2018
DOI 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-022214
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kristin A Sonderman, Theoneste Nkurunziza, Fredrick Kateera, Magdalena Gruendl, Rachel Koch, Erick Gaju, Caste Habiyakare, Alexi Matousek, Evrard Nahimana, Georges Ntakiyiruta, Robert Riviello, Bethany L Hedt-Gauthier

Abstract

Surgical site infections (SSIs) are a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in low-income and middle-income countries, where rates of SSIs can reach 30%. Due to limited access, there is minimal follow-up postoperatively. Community health workers (CHWs) have not yet been used for surgical patients in most settings. Advancements in telecommunication create an opportunity for mobile health (mHealth) tools to support CHWs. We aim to evaluate the use of mHealth technology to aid CHWs in identification of SSIs and promote referral of patients back to healthcare facilities. Prospective randomised controlled trial conducted at Kirehe District Hospital, Rwanda, from November 2017 to November 2018. Patients ≥18 years who undergo caesarean section are eligible. Non-residents of Kirehe District or patients who remain in hospital >10 days postoperatively will be excluded. Patients will be randomised to one of three arms. For arm 1, a CHW will visit the patient's home on postoperative day 10 (±3 days) to administer an SSI screening protocol (fever, pain or purulent drainage) using an electronic tablet. For arm 2, the CHW will administer the screening protocol over the phone. For both arms 1 and 2, the CHW will refer patients who respond 'yes' to any of the questions to a health facility. For arm 3, patients will not receive follow-up care. Our primary outcome will be the impact of the mHealth-CHW intervention on the rate of return to care for patients with an SSI. The study has received ethical approval from the Rwandan National Ethics Committee and Partners Healthcare. Results will be disseminated to Kirehe District Hospital, Rwanda Ministry of Health, Rwanda Surgical Society, Partners In Health, through conferences and peer-reviewed publications. NCT03311399.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 168 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 168 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 27 16%
Researcher 19 11%
Student > Bachelor 16 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 5%
Other 21 13%
Unknown 61 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 30 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 29 17%
Social Sciences 9 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 4%
Engineering 5 3%
Other 19 11%
Unknown 70 42%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 27 January 2021.
All research outputs
#16,728,456
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from BMJ Open
#18,349
of 25,597 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#209,541
of 341,279 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMJ Open
#444
of 611 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 25,597 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.2. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% 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 341,279 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 611 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.