↓ Skip to main content

Estimating program coverage in the treatment of severe acute malnutrition: a comparative analysis of the validity and operational feasibility of two methods

Overview of attention for article published in Population Health Metrics, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
51 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
Estimating program coverage in the treatment of severe acute malnutrition: a comparative analysis of the validity and operational feasibility of two methods
Published in
Population Health Metrics, July 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12963-018-0167-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sheila Isanaka, Bethany L. Hedt-Gauthier, Rebecca F. Grais, Ben G. S. Allen

Abstract

Many health programs can assess coverage using standardized cluster survey methods, but estimating the coverage of nutrition programs presents a special challenge due to low disease prevalence. Used since 2012, the Semi-Quantitative Evaluation of Access and Coverage (SQUEAC) employs both qualitative and quantitative methods to identify key barriers to access and estimate coverage of therapeutic feeding programs. While the tool has been increasingly used in programs, the validity of certain methodological elements has been the subject of debate. We conducted a study comparing a SQUEAC conjugate Bayesian analysis to a two-stage cluster survey estimating the coverage of a therapeutic feeding program in Niger in 2016. We found that the coverage estimate from the conjugate Bayesian analysis was sensitive to the prior estimation. With the exception of prior estimates produced by an external support team, all prior estimates resulted in a conflict with the likelihood result, excluding interpretation of the final coverage estimate. Allowing for increased uncertainty around the prior estimate did not materially affect conclusions. SQUEAC is a demanding analytical method requiring both qualitative and quantitative data collection and synthesis to identify program barriers and estimate coverage. If the necessary technical capacity is not available to objectively specify an accurate prior for a conjugate Bayesian analysis, alternatives, such as a two-stage cluster survey or a larger likelihood survey, may be considered to ensure valid coverage estimation. NCT03280082 . Retrospectively registered on September 12, 2017.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 51 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 8 16%
Student > Master 7 14%
Researcher 7 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 8%
Professor 3 6%
Other 4 8%
Unknown 18 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 12 24%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 20%
Social Sciences 3 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Unspecified 1 2%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 20 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 08 July 2018.
All research outputs
#3,643,802
of 23,094,276 outputs
Outputs from Population Health Metrics
#93
of 392 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#70,730
of 327,912 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Population Health Metrics
#3
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,094,276 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 392 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% 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 327,912 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.