↓ Skip to main content

Seroprevalence of hepatitis B virus infection and associated factors among healthcare workers in northern Tanzania

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Infectious Diseases, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
38 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
256 Mendeley
Title
Seroprevalence of hepatitis B virus infection and associated factors among healthcare workers in northern Tanzania
Published in
BMC Infectious Diseases, September 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12879-018-3376-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Elichilia R. Shao, Innocent B. Mboya, Daniel W. Gunda, Flora G. Ruhangisa, Elizabeth M. Temu, Mercy L. Nkwama, Jeremia J. Pyuza, Kajiru G. Kilonzo, Furaha S. Lyamuya, Venance P. Maro

Abstract

Hepatitis B virus infection is a global health problem with the highest prevalence in East Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa. The majority of infected people, including healthcare workers are unaware of their status. This study is aimed to determining seroprevalence of hepatitis B virus infection and associated factors among healthcare workers in northern Tanzania. This cross-sectional study included 442 healthcare workers (HCWs) from a tertiary and teaching hospital in Tanzania before the nationwide hepatitis B vaccination campaign in 2004. Questionnaire- based interviews were used to obtain detailed histories of the following: demographic characteristics; occupation risks such splash and needle stick injuries or other invasive procedure such as intravenous, intramuscular or subcutaneous injections; history of blood transfusion and surgeries, as well as HCWs'knowledge of HBV. Serological markers of HBV were done using Laborex HBsAg rapid test. Serology was done at zero months and repeated after six months ( bioscienceinternational.co.ke/rapid-test-laborex.html HBsAg Piazzale-milano-2, Italy [Accessed on November 2017]). Chi-square (χ2) tests were used to compare proportion of HBV infection by different HCWs characteristics. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine factors associated with HBV infection. A total of 450 surveys were sent out, with a 98.2% response rate. Among the 442 HCWs who answered the questionnaire, the prevalence of chronic hepatitis B virus infection was 5.7% (25/442). Only 50 (11.3%) of HCWs were aware of the HBV status. During the second HBsAg testing which was done after six months one participant sero-converted hence was excluded. Adjusted for other factors, history of blood transfusion significantly increased the odds of HBV infection (OR = 21.44, 95%CI 6.05, 76.01, p < 0.001) while HBV vaccine uptake was protective against HBV infection (OR = 0.06, 95%CI 0.02, 0.26, p < 0.001). The majority of HCWs with chronic HBV infection had poor to fare knowledge about HBV infection but this was not statistically significant when controlled for confounding. Prevalence of HBV among health care workers was 5.7% which is similar to national prevalence. Although the response rate to take part in the study was good but knowledge on HBV infection among HCWs was unsatisfactory. History of blood transfusion increased risks while vaccine uptake decreased the risk of HBV infection. This study recommends continues vaccinating HCWs together with continues medical education all over the country. We also recommend documentation of vaccination evidence should be asked before employment of HCWs in order to sensitize more uptakes of vaccinations. Although we didn't assess the use of personal protective equipment but we encourage HCWs to abide strictly on universal protections against nosocomial infections.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 256 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 256 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 27 11%
Student > Bachelor 26 10%
Researcher 17 7%
Student > Postgraduate 16 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 4%
Other 30 12%
Unknown 130 51%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 50 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 26 10%
Environmental Science 6 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 2%
Other 25 10%
Unknown 137 54%
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 25 September 2018.
All research outputs
#17,990,409
of 23,103,903 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#5,181
of 7,754 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#244,742
of 341,592 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#83
of 145 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,103,903 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,754 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.3. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% 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 341,592 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 145 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.