↓ Skip to main content

Principles, practices and knowledge of clinicians when assessing febrile children: a qualitative study in Kenya

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

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
122 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
Principles, practices and knowledge of clinicians when assessing febrile children: a qualitative study in Kenya
Published in
Malaria Journal, September 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12936-017-2021-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anneka M. Hooft, Kelsey Ripp, Bryson Ndenga, Francis Mutuku, David Vu, Kimberly Baltzell, Linnet N. Masese, John Vulule, Dunstan Mukoko, A. Desiree LaBeaud

Abstract

Clinicians in low resource settings in malaria endemic regions face many challenges in diagnosing and treating febrile illnesses in children. Given the change in WHO guidelines in 2010 that recommend malaria testing prior to treatment, clinicians are now required to expand the differential when malaria testing is negative. Prior studies have indicated that resource availability, need for additional training in differentiating non-malarial illnesses, and lack of understanding within the community of when to seek care play a role in effective diagnosis and treatment. The objective of this study was to examine the various factors that influence clinician behavior in diagnosing and managing children presenting with fever to health centres in Kenya. A total of 20 clinicians (2 paediatricians, 1 medical officer, 2 nurses, and 15 clinical officers) were interviewed, working at 5 different government-sponsored public clinic sites in two areas of Kenya where malaria is prevalent. Clinicians were interviewed one-on-one using a structured interview technique. Interviews were then analysed qualitatively for themes. The following five themes were identified: (1) Strong familiarity with diagnosis of malaria and testing for malaria; (2) Clinician concerns about community understanding of febrile illness, use of traditional medicine, delay in seeking care, and compliance; (3) Reliance on clinical guidelines, history, and physical examination to diagnose febrile illness and recognize danger signs; (4) Clinician discomfort with diagnosis of primary viral illness leading to increased use of empiric antibiotics; and (5) Lack of resources including diagnostic testing, necessary medications, and training modalities contributes to the difficulty clinicians face in assessing and treating febrile illness in children. These themes persisted across all sites, despite variation in levels of medical care. Within these themes, clinicians consistently expressed a need for reliable basic testing, especially haemograms and bacterial cultures. Clinicians discussed the use of counseling and education to improve community understanding of febrile illness in order to decrease preventable deaths in children. Results of this study suggest that since malarial testing has become more widespread, clinicians working in resource-poor environments still face difficulty when evaluating a child with fever, especially when malaria testing is negative. Improving access to additional diagnostics, continuing medical education, and ongoing evaluation and revision of clinical guidelines may lead to more consistent management of febrile illness by providers, and may potentially decrease prescription of unnecessary antibiotics. Additional interventions at the community level may also have an important role in managing febrile illness, however, more studies are needed to identify targets for intervention at both the clinic and community levels.

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 122 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 122 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 17 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 10%
Student > Bachelor 11 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 8%
Researcher 9 7%
Other 24 20%
Unknown 39 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 32 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 10%
Social Sciences 6 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 2%
Other 17 14%
Unknown 46 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 16 November 2022.
All research outputs
#6,133,881
of 24,400,706 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
#1,542
of 5,827 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#91,005
of 322,281 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
#45
of 127 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,400,706 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,827 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 322,281 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 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 127 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.