↓ Skip to main content

Caregiver Decision-Making: Household Response to Child Illness in Sub-Saharan Africa

Overview of attention for article published in Population Research and Policy Review, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
83 Mendeley
Title
Caregiver Decision-Making: Household Response to Child Illness in Sub-Saharan Africa
Published in
Population Research and Policy Review, July 2016
DOI 10.1007/s11113-016-9396-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hayley Pierce, Ashley Larsen Gibby, Renata Forste

Abstract

We draw upon a framework outlining household recognition and response to child illness proposed by Colvin and colleagues (2013) to examine factors predictive of treatment sought for a recent child illness. In particular, we model whether no treatment, middle layer treatment (traditional healer, pharmacy, community health worker, etc.), or biomedical treatment was sought for recent episodes of diarrhea, fever, or cough. Based on multinomial, multilevel analyses of Demographic and Health Surveys from 19 countries in sub-Saharan Africa, we determine that if women have no say in their own healthcare, they are unlikely to seek treatment in response to child illness. We find that women in sub-Saharan Africa need healthcare knowledge, the ability to make healthcare decisions, as well as resources to negotiate cost and travel, in order to access biomedical treatment. Past experience with medical services such as prenatal care and a skilled birth attendant also increase the odds that biomedical treatment for child illness is sought. We conclude that caregiver decision-making in response to child illness within households is critical to reducing child morbidity and mortality in sub-Saharan Africa.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 83 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 83 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 18 22%
Researcher 18 22%
Student > Bachelor 11 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 8%
Other 3 4%
Other 7 8%
Unknown 19 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 25%
Social Sciences 11 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 12%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 4 5%
Engineering 2 2%
Other 10 12%
Unknown 25 30%
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 19 January 2021.
All research outputs
#15,172,794
of 25,388,837 outputs
Outputs from Population Research and Policy Review
#519
of 693 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#203,559
of 369,230 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Population Research and Policy Review
#9
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,388,837 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 693 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.9. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% 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 369,230 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.