↓ Skip to main content

Adherence to Ebola-specific malaria case management guidelines at health facilities in Guinea during the West African Ebola epidemic

Overview of attention for article published in Malaria Journal, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (63rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Readers on

mendeley
42 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
Adherence to Ebola-specific malaria case management guidelines at health facilities in Guinea during the West African Ebola epidemic
Published in
Malaria Journal, June 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12936-018-2377-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ian Hennessee, Timothée Guilavogui, Alioune Camara, Eric S. Halsey, Barbara Marston, Deborah McFarland, Matthew Freeman, Mateusz M. Plucinski

Abstract

Malaria case management in the context of the 2014-2016 West African Ebola virus disease (EVD) epidemic was complicated by a similar initial clinical presentation of the two diseases. In September 2014, the World Health Organization (WHO) released recommendations titled, "Guidance on temporary malaria control measures in Ebola-affected countries", which aimed at reducing the risk of EVD transmission and improving malaria outcomes. This guidance recommended malaria diagnostic testing of fever cases only if adequate personal protective equipment (PPE) was available, defined as examination gloves, face shield, disposable gown, boots, and head cover; otherwise presumptive anti-malarial treatment was recommended. The extent to which health workers adhered to these guidelines in affected countries has not been assessed. A cross-sectional survey was conducted in 118 health units in Guinea in November 2014 to produce a representative and probabilistic sample of health facilities and patients. Adherence to the EVD-specific malaria case management guidelines during the height of the EVD epidemic was assessed. Associations between case management practices and possible determinants were calculated using multivariate logistic regression, controlling for expected confounders and the complex sample design. Most (78%) facilities reported availability of examination gloves, but adequate PPE was available at only 27% of facilities. Only 28% of febrile patients received correct malaria case management per the WHO temporary malaria case management guidelines. The most common error was diagnostic testing in the absence of adequate PPE (45% of febrile patients), followed by no presumptive treatment in the absence of adequate PPE (14%). Having had a report of an EVD case at a health facility and health worker-reported participation in EVD-specific malaria trainings were associated with lower odds of diagnostic testing and higher odds of presumptive treatment. Adherence to guidance on malaria case management in EVD-affected countries was low at the height of the EVD epidemic in Guinea, and there was substantial malaria diagnostic testing in the absence of adequate PPE, which could have contributed to increased EVD transmission in the healthcare setting. Conversely, low presumptive treatment when diagnostic tests were not performed may have led to additional morbidity and mortality among malaria positive patients. National malaria control programs may consider preparing contingency plans for future implementation of temporary changes to malaria case management guidelines to facilitate uptake by health workers. Additional training on standard and transmission-based precautions should help health workers understand how to protect themselves in the face of emerging and unknown pathogens.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 42 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 12%
Student > Bachelor 5 12%
Student > Master 4 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 7%
Other 6 14%
Unknown 12 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 8 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 17%
Engineering 3 7%
Psychology 2 5%
Chemistry 2 5%
Other 5 12%
Unknown 15 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 24 November 2019.
All research outputs
#7,845,880
of 25,718,113 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
#2,075
of 5,967 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#123,949
of 342,997 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
#31
of 94 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,718,113 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,967 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% 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 342,997 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 94 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 65% of its contemporaries.