↓ Skip to main content

Factors Affecting the Delivery, Access, and Use of Interventions to Prevent Malaria in Pregnancy in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS Medicine, July 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
4 news outlets
policy
1 policy source
twitter
26 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
175 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
620 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
Factors Affecting the Delivery, Access, and Use of Interventions to Prevent Malaria in Pregnancy in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Published in
PLOS Medicine, July 2013
DOI 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001488
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jenny Hill, Jenna Hoyt, Anna Maria van Eijk, Lauren D'Mello-Guyett, Feiko O. ter Kuile, Rick Steketee, Helen Smith, Jayne Webster

Abstract

Malaria in pregnancy has important consequences for mother and baby. Coverage with the World Health Organization-recommended prevention strategy for pregnant women in sub-Saharan Africa of intermittent preventive treatment in pregnancy (IPTp) and insecticide-treated nets (ITNs) is low. We conducted a systematic review to explore factors affecting delivery, access, and use of IPTp and ITNs among healthcare providers and women.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 26 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 620 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 2 <1%
Ghana 2 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Ethiopia 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Nigeria 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 609 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 186 30%
Researcher 62 10%
Student > Bachelor 57 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 46 7%
Student > Postgraduate 45 7%
Other 89 14%
Unknown 135 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 170 27%
Nursing and Health Professions 101 16%
Social Sciences 68 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 31 5%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 14 2%
Other 90 15%
Unknown 146 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 50. 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 02 March 2023.
All research outputs
#840,210
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from PLOS Medicine
#1,306
of 5,161 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,749
of 209,219 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS Medicine
#22
of 49 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,161 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 77.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its peers.
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 209,219 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 49 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.