↓ Skip to main content

Understanding why child welfare clinic attendance and growth of children in the nutrition surveillance programme is below target: lessons learnt from a mixed methods study in Ghana

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Nursing, June 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
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
264 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
Understanding why child welfare clinic attendance and growth of children in the nutrition surveillance programme is below target: lessons learnt from a mixed methods study in Ghana
Published in
BMC Nursing, June 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12912-018-0294-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Faith Agbozo, Esi Colecraft, Albrecht Jahn, Timothy Guetterman

Abstract

Growth monitoring and promotion (GMP) programmes promote not only child health but serve as a service delivery strategy to enhance coverage for other crucial nutrition-specific interventions. This study compared community-based and facility-based GMP programme with respect to attendance rates, children's nutritional status, caregivers' satisfaction with services received and perceptions of service providers and users on factors influencing utilization. Explanatory sequential mixed methods study conducted in Ga West municipality, Ghana. It comprised 12-month secondary data analysis using growth monitoring registers of 220 infants aged 0-3 months enrolled in two community-based (CB = 104) and two facility-based (FB = 116) child welfare clinics; cross-sectional survey (exit interview) of 232 caregiver-child pairs accessing CB (n = 104) and FB services (n = 116); and in-depth interviews with 10 health workers and 15 mothers. Quantitative data were analyzed through Fisher's exact, unpaired t-tests, and logistic regression at 95% confidence interval (CI) using SPSS version 20. Qualitative data were analyzed by thematic content analysis using ATLAS.ti 7.0. Mean annual attendance to both programmes was similar with an average of six visits per year. Only 13.6% of caregiver-child pairs attained more than nine visits in the 12-months period. At least 60% of children in both programs had improved weight-for-age z-scores (WAZ) scores during participation. Predictors for improved WAZ were being underweight at baseline (AOR:11.1, 95%CI:4.0-31.0), annual attendance of at least six visits (AOR:2.2, 95%CI:1.1-4.1) and meeting the Ghana Health Service target of nine visits (AOR:4.65, 95%CI:1.4-15.1). Compared to 31.5% CB users, significant proportion of FB caregivers (57.4%) were visited at home. Half were dissatisfied with services received (CB:55.6% vs. FB:62.0%, p = 0.437) citing long waiting times, negative staff attitude and extortions of money. Regarding perceptions on factors hindering service utilization, emerged themes included extremes of maternal age, high parity, postpartum socio-cultural beliefs and practices, financial commitments, undue delays, unprofessional staff behaviours, high premium on vaccination and general misconceptions about the programme. The association of increased attendance with improved growth reaffirms the need to strengthen primary healthcare systems to improve service delivery; sensitize caregivers on contribution of growth monitoring and promotion to early child development; and increase contacts through home visits.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 264 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 264 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 39 15%
Student > Master 33 13%
Researcher 20 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 5%
Other 10 4%
Other 37 14%
Unknown 113 43%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 72 27%
Medicine and Dentistry 19 7%
Social Sciences 9 3%
Psychology 6 2%
Unspecified 6 2%
Other 28 11%
Unknown 124 47%
Attention Score in Context

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 2018.
All research outputs
#14,550,455
of 23,302,246 outputs
Outputs from BMC Nursing
#407
of 773 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#186,097
of 328,649 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Nursing
#5
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,302,246 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 773 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.3. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% 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 328,649 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.