↓ Skip to main content

Cost benefit analysis of malaria rapid diagnostic test: the perspective of Nigerian community pharmacists

Overview of attention for article published in Malaria Journal, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
134 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
Cost benefit analysis of malaria rapid diagnostic test: the perspective of Nigerian community pharmacists
Published in
Malaria Journal, January 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12936-016-1648-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ifeoma Jovita Ezennia, Sunday Odunke Nduka, Obinna Ikechukwu Ekwunife

Abstract

In 2010, the World Health Organization issued a guideline that calls for a shift from presumptive to test-based treatment. However, test-based treatment is still unpopular in community pharmacies. This could be due to unwillingness of customers to spend extra finance on rapid diagnostic test (RDT). It could also result from lack of interest from community pharmacists since they may perceive no financial gain attached to this service. This study assessed the cost-benefit of test-based malaria treatment to community pharmacists. The study was a community pharmacy-based cross sectional survey. Potential benefit of RDT was determined using customers' willingness-to-pay (WTP) for service. Average WTP was estimated using contingent valuation. Binary logistic regression was used to assess correlates of WTP acceptance while multiple linear regression was used to model the relationship between the independent variables and WTP amount. Cost associated with provision of RDT was estimated from provider's perspective. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was used to capture parameter uncertainty. Benefit-cost ratio (BCR) was calculated to determine study objective. A total of 135 out of 235 participants (57.4%) responded to the WTP question. Of this subset, 111 participants (82.2%) preferred RDT before malaria treatment. Average WTP [minimum-maximum] was US$1.23 [US$0.0-US$5.03]. Educated participants had 1.8 times higher odds of WTP for RDT. Participants that understood RDT as described in the questionnaire had 18.3 times higher odds of WTP for RDT compared to participants that did not understand RDT as described in the questionnaire. Additionally, a unit increase in level of education (e.g. from primary to secondary school) led to US$0.298 increase in WTP amount for RDT. Also, a unit increase in malaria frequency (e.g. from 'never' to 'rarely') led to US$0.293 decrease in WTP amount for RDT. Average cost [minimum-maximum] of RDT test kit and pharmacist time spent in administering the test were US$0.15 [US$0.13-US$0.17] and US$0.41 [US$0.18-US$0.52], respectively. BCR of test-based malaria treatment was 6.7 (95% CI 6.4-7.0). Test-based malaria treatment is cost-beneficial for pharmacy practitioners. This finding could be used as an advocacy tool to increase community pharmacists' interest and uptake of test-based malaria treatment.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 134 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 134 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 21 16%
Researcher 16 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 10%
Lecturer 8 6%
Student > Bachelor 8 6%
Other 29 22%
Unknown 38 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 17%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 18 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 7%
Engineering 8 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 5%
Other 26 19%
Unknown 43 32%

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 29 June 2019.
All research outputs
#14,304,007
of 22,925,760 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
#3,982
of 5,582 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#229,790
of 421,214 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
#69
of 106 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,925,760 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,582 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% 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 421,214 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 106 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.