↓ Skip to main content

Measuring the impact of seasonal malaria chemoprevention as part of routine malaria control in Kita, Mali

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#43 of 3,589)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
4 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
7 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
54 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
178 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
Measuring the impact of seasonal malaria chemoprevention as part of routine malaria control in Kita, Mali
Published in
Malaria Journal, August 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12936-017-1974-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Fatou Diawara, Laura C. Steinhardt, Almahamoudou Mahamar, Tiangoua Traore, Daouda T. Kone, Halimatou Diawara, Beh Kamate, Diakalia Kone, Mouctar Diallo, Aboubacar Sadou, Jules Mihigo, Issaka Sagara, Abdoulaye A. Djimde, Erin Eckert, Alassane Dicko

Abstract

Seasonal malaria chemoprevention (SMC) is a new strategy recommended by WHO in areas of highly seasonal transmission in March 2012. Although randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have shown SMC to be highly effective, evidence and experience from routine implementation of SMC are limited. A non-randomized pragmatic trial with pre-post design was used, with one intervention district (Kita), where four rounds of SMC with sulfadoxine + amodiaquine (SP + AQ) took place in August-November 2014, and one comparison district (Bafoulabe). The primary aims were to evaluate SMC coverage and reductions in prevalence of malaria and anaemia when SMC is delivered through routine programmes using existing community health workers. Children aged 3-59 months from 15 selected localities per district, sampled with probability proportional to size, were surveyed and blood samples collected for malaria blood smears, haemoglobin (Hb) measurement, and molecular markers of drug resistance in two cross-sectional surveys, one before SMC (July 2014) and one after SMC (December 2014). Difference-in-differences regression models were used to assess and compare changes in malaria and anaemia in the intervention and comparison districts. Adherence and tolerability of SMC were assessed by cross-sectional surveys 4-7 days after each SMC round. Coverage of SMC was assessed in the post-SMC survey. During round 1, 84% of targeted children received at least the first SMC dose, but coverage declined to 67% by round 4. Across the four treatment rounds, 54% of children received four complete SMC courses. Prevalence of parasitaemia was similar in intervention and comparison districts prior to SMC (23.4 vs 29.5%, p = 0.34) as was the prevalence of malaria illness (2.4 vs 1.9%, p = 0.75). After SMC, parasitaemia prevalence fell to 18% in the intervention district and increased to 46% in the comparison district [difference-in-differences (DD) OR = 0.35; 95% CI 0.20-0.60]. Prevalence of malaria illness fell to a greater degree in the intervention district versus the comparison district (DD OR = 0.20; 95% CI 0.04-0.94) and the same for moderate anaemia (Hb < 8 g/dL) (DD OR = 0.26, 95% CI 0.11-0.65). The frequency of the quintuple mutation (dhfr N51I, C59R and S108N + dhps A437G and K540E) remained low (5%) before and after intervention in both districts. Routine implementation of SMC in Mali substantially reduced malaria and anaemia, with reductions of similar magnitude to those seen in previous RCTs. Improving coverage could further strengthen SMC impact. Trial registration clinical trial registration number NCT02894294.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 178 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 178 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 30 17%
Researcher 29 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 9%
Student > Bachelor 13 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 6%
Other 18 10%
Unknown 61 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 33 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 26 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 7%
Social Sciences 11 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 10 6%
Other 15 8%
Unknown 71 40%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 39. 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 12 December 2017.
All research outputs
#361,789
of 12,287,089 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
#43
of 3,589 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,625
of 269,133 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
#6
of 123 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,287,089 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,589 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 269,133 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 123 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.