↓ Skip to main content

Private sector malaria RDT initiative in Nigeria: lessons from an end-of-project stakeholder engagement meeting

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
48 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
Private sector malaria RDT initiative in Nigeria: lessons from an end-of-project stakeholder engagement meeting
Published in
Malaria Journal, February 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12936-018-2222-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Babatunde Odugbemi, Chijioke Ezeudu, Anyiekere Ekanem, Maxwell Kolawole, Idowu Akanmu, Aderemi Olawole, Nkabono Nglass, Chinwe Nze, Edward Idenu, Bala Mohammed Audu, Godwin Ntadom, Wondimagegnehu Alemu, Rex Mpazanje, Jane Cunningham, Augustine Akubue, Tolu Arowolo, Seye Babatunde

Abstract

The malaria rapid diagnosis testing (RDT) landscape is rapidly evolving in health care delivery in Nigeria with many stakeholders playing or having potential for critical roles. A recent UNITAID grant supported a pilot project on the deployment of quality-assured RDTs among formal and informal private service outlets in three states in Nigeria. This paper describes findings from a series of stakeholder engagement meetings held at the conclusion of the project. The agreed meeting structure was a combination of plenary presentations, structured facilitated discussions, and nominal group techniques to achieve consensus. Rapporteurs recorded the meeting proceeding and summaries of the major areas of discussion and consensus points through a retrospective thematic analysis of the submitted meeting reports. Key findings indicate that private providers were confident in the use of RDTs for malaria diagnosis and believed it has improved the quality of their services. However, concerns were raised about continued access to quality-assured RDT kits. Going forward, stakeholders recommended increasing client-driven demand, and continuous training and supervision of providers through integration with existing monitoring and supervision mechanisms.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 48 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 15%
Student > Postgraduate 6 13%
Student > Master 6 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 8%
Other 8 17%
Unknown 13 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 6%
Other 8 17%
Unknown 15 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 September 2019.
All research outputs
#14,168,969
of 24,400,706 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
#3,444
of 5,827 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#219,060
of 445,351 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
#81
of 130 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,400,706 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% 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 445,351 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 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 130 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.