↓ Skip to main content

A cluster-randomised controlled trial integrating a community-based water, sanitation and hygiene programme, with mass distribution of albendazole to reduce intestinal parasites in Timor-Leste: the…

Overview of attention for article published in BMJ Open, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
38 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
205 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
A cluster-randomised controlled trial integrating a community-based water, sanitation and hygiene programme, with mass distribution of albendazole to reduce intestinal parasites in Timor-Leste: the WASH for WORMS research protocol
Published in
BMJ Open, December 2015
DOI 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009293
Pubmed ID
Authors

Susana Vaz Nery, James S McCarthy, Rebecca Traub, Ross M Andrews, Jim Black, Darren Gray, Edmund Weking, Jo-An Atkinson, Suzy Campbell, Naomi Francis, Andrew Vallely, Gail Williams, Archie Clements

Abstract

There is limited evidence demonstrating the benefits of community-based water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) programmes on infections with soil-transmitted helminths (STH) and intestinal protozoa. Our study aims to contribute to that evidence base by investigating the effectiveness of combining two complementary approaches for control of STH: periodic mass administration of albendazole, and delivery of a community-based WASH programme. WASH for WORMS is a cluster-randomised controlled trial to test the hypothesis that a community-based WASH intervention integrated with periodic mass distribution of albendazole will be more effective in reducing infections with STH and protozoa than mass deworming alone. All 18 participating rural communities in Timor-Leste receive mass chemotherapy every 6 months. Half the communities also receive the community-based WASH programme. Primary outcomes are the cumulative incidence of infection with STH. Secondary outcomes include the prevalence of protozoa; intensity of infection with STH; as well as morbidity indicators (anaemia, stunting and wasting). Each of the trial outcomes will be compared between control and intervention communities. End points will be measured 2 years after the first albendazole distribution; and midpoints are measured at 6 months intervals (12 months for haemoglobin and anthropometric indexes). Mixed-methods research will also be conducted in order to identify barriers and enablers associated with the acceptability and uptake of the WASH programme. Ethics approval was obtained from the human ethics committees at the University of Queensland, Australian National University, Timorese Ministry of Health, and University of Melbourne. The results of the trial will be published in peer-reviewed journals presented at national and international conferences, and disseminated to relevant stakeholders in health and WASH programmes. This study is funded by a Partnership for Better Health-Project grant from the National Health and Research Council (NHMRC), Australia. ACTRN12614000680662; Pre-results.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 204 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 34 17%
Researcher 26 13%
Student > Bachelor 23 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 9%
Lecturer 11 5%
Other 33 16%
Unknown 60 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 41 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 22 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 13 6%
Environmental Science 12 6%
Social Sciences 9 4%
Other 40 20%
Unknown 68 33%
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 01 January 2016.
All research outputs
#19,945,185
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from BMJ Open
#21,155
of 25,589 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#278,447
of 399,631 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMJ Open
#365
of 424 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 25,589 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 14th percentile – i.e., 14% 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 399,631 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 424 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.