↓ Skip to main content

Performance of general health workers in leprosy control activities at public health facilities in Amhara and Oromia States, Ethiopia

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
172 Mendeley
Title
Performance of general health workers in leprosy control activities at public health facilities in Amhara and Oromia States, Ethiopia
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, April 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12913-016-1329-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tadiye Abeje, Edessa Negera, Eshetu Kebede, Tsegaye Hailu, Ismaile Hassen, Tsehainesh Lema, Lawrence Yamuah, Birru Shiguti, Melkamu Fenta, Megersa Negasa, Demissew Beyene, Kidist Bobosha, Abraham Aseffa

Abstract

Leprosy is a chronic infectious disease of public health importance and one of the leading causes of permanent physical disability. Nevertheless, the drop in prevalence following multidrug therapy has resulted in the neglect of leprosy. The annual incidence of leprosy has remained the same in Ethiopia since decades with more than 76 % of the reported new cases coming from Oromia and Amhara Regional States. This study was aimed to assess the knowledge, attitude and skill of general health workers in leprosy control activities at public health facilities in Oromia and Amhara Regional States. A cross-sectional study was conducted from September 2011 to February 2012 at different public health facilities in selected eight zones in Oromia and Amhara Regional States. A multistage sampling method was used to obtain representative samples. High and low endemic zones for leprosy were included in the study in both regional states. Data were collected from general health workers through a structured self-administered questionnaire and at on-site assessment of their performance. Baseline socio-demographic data, health workers' attitude towards leprosy and their knowledge and skill in the management of leprosy were assessed. Bloom's cut off point was used to describe the knowledge and practical skills of the respondents while Likert's scale was used for attitude assessment. A total of 601 general health workers responsible for leprosy control activities at public health facilities were included in knowledge and attitude assessment and 83 of them were subjected to practical evaluation, with on-site observation of how they handle leprosy patients. These included medical doctors (4 %), health officers and nurses with Bachelor degree in Science (27 %), clinical nurses with diploma (66 %) and health assistants (2.8 %). The median age of the respondents was 26.0 years and females made up of 45 %. Generally the knowledge and skills of the respondents were found to be poor while attitude towards leprosy was positive for the majority of the respondents. The result showed that 519 (86.3 %) had poor knowledge. Overall 155 (25.8 %) of the respondents had positive attitude towards leprosy while 205 (34.1 %) had intermediate (mixed) attitude and 241 (40.1 %) had negative attitude to the disease. Among 83 respondents assessed for diagnosis of leprosy only 15(18.0 %) diagnosed leprosy correctly. Variation in knowledge and attitude indicated a significant difference (p < 0.05) among different health institutions, professions, gender, in-service training and years of experience. The current finding underlines that although leprosy control activities are integrated to the general health services in the country, the knowledge and skills of leprosy diagnosis, treatment and management by health workers was unsatisfactory. Hence, attention should be given to develop training strategies that can improve health worker knowledge and promote better leprosy management at public health facilities. This could be achieved through pre-service and in-service training and giving adequate emphasis to leprosy related practical work and continuous follow- up.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
India 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 170 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 27 16%
Researcher 23 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 8%
Student > Bachelor 11 6%
Other 10 6%
Other 26 15%
Unknown 61 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 39 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 29 17%
Social Sciences 9 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 3%
Immunology and Microbiology 4 2%
Other 22 13%
Unknown 64 37%
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 07 April 2016.
All research outputs
#17,796,099
of 22,860,626 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#6,295
of 7,647 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#206,616
of 301,000 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#69
of 83 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,860,626 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 7,647 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% 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 301,000 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 83 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.