↓ Skip to main content

Health service provider education and/or training in infant male circumcision to improve short- and long-term morbidity outcomes: protocol for systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
54 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
Health service provider education and/or training in infant male circumcision to improve short- and long-term morbidity outcomes: protocol for systematic review
Published in
Systematic Reviews, January 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13643-016-0216-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Thomas Gyan, Thomas Gyan, Natalie Strobel, Kimberley McAuley, Caitlin Shannon, Sam Newton, Charlotte Tawiah-Agyemang, Seeba Amenga-Etego, Seth Owusu-Agyei, David Forbes, Karen Edmond

Abstract

There has been an expansion of circumcision services in Africa as part of a long-term HIV prevention strategy. However, the effect of infant male circumcision on morbidity and mortality still remains unclear. Acute morbidities associated with circumcision include pain, bleeding, swelling, infection, tetanus or inadequate skin removal. Scale-up of circumcision services could lead to a rise in these associated morbidities that could have significant impact on health service delivery and the safety of infants. Multidisciplinary training programmes have been developed to improve skills of health service providers, but very little is known about the effectiveness of health service provider education and/or training for infant male circumcision on short- and long-term morbidity outcomes. This review aims to evaluate the effectiveness of health service provider education and/or training for infant male circumcision on short- and long-term morbidity outcomes. The review will include studies comparing health service providers who have received education and/or training to improve their skills for infant male circumcision with those who have not received education and/or training. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster RCTs will be included. The outcomes of interest are short-term morbidities of the male infant including pain, infection, tetanus, bleeding, excess skin removal, glans amputation and fistula. Long-term morbidities include urinary tract infection (UTI), HIV infection and abnormalities of urination. Databases such as MEDLINE (OVID), PsycINFO (OVID), EMBASE (OVID), CINAHL, Cochrane Library (including CENTRAL and DARE), WHO databases and reference list of papers will be searched for relevant articles. Study selection, data extraction and synthesis and risk of bias assessment using the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool will be conducted. We will calculate the pooled estimates of the difference in means and risk ratios using random effects models. If insufficient data are available, we will present results descriptively. This review appears to be the first to be conducted in this area. The findings will have important implications for infant male circumcision programmes and policy. PROSPERO CRD42015029345.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 54 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Denmark 1 2%
Unknown 53 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 7 13%
Researcher 6 11%
Student > Master 6 11%
Other 4 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 6%
Other 13 24%
Unknown 15 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 13%
Social Sciences 4 7%
Engineering 3 6%
Psychology 2 4%
Other 2 4%
Unknown 18 33%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 03 March 2016.
All research outputs
#5,554,276
of 7,346,659 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#481
of 565 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#197,501
of 281,318 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#41
of 48 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 7,346,659 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 565 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% 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 281,318 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 48 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.