↓ Skip to main content

Integrated management of childhood illness (IMCI) strategy for children under five

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
5 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
policy
1 policy source
twitter
40 tweeters
facebook
7 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
48 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
483 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Integrated management of childhood illness (IMCI) strategy for children under five
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010123.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tarun Gera, Dheeraj Shah, Paul Garner, Marty Richardson, Harshpal S Sachdev

Abstract

More than 7.5 million children younger than age five living in low- and middle-income countries die every year. The World Health Organization (WHO) developed the integrated management of childhood illness (IMCI) strategy to reduce mortality and morbidity and to improve quality of care by improving the delivery of a variety of curative and preventive medical and behavioral interventions at health facilities, at home, and in the community. To evaluate the effects of programs that implement the IMCI strategy in terms of death, nutritional status, quality of care, coverage with IMCI deliverables, and satisfaction of beneficiaries. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2015, Issue 3), including the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group Specialised Register; MEDLINE; EMBASE, Ovid; the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), EbscoHost; the Latin American Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS), Virtual Health Library (VHL); the WHO Library & Information Networks for Knowledge Database (WHOLIS); the Science Citation Index and Social Sciences Citation Index, Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) Web of Science; Population Information Online (POPLINE); the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP); and the Global Health, Ovid and Health Management, ProQuest database. We performed searches until 30 June 2015 and supplemented these by searching revised bibliographies and by contacting experts to identify ongoing and unpublished studies. We sought to include randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled before-after (CBA) studies with at least two intervention and two control sites evaluating the generic IMCI strategy or its adaptation in children younger than age five, and including at minimum efforts to improve health care worker skills for case management. We excluded studies in which IMCI was accompanied by other interventions including conditional cash transfers, food supplementation, and employment. The comparison group received usual health services without provision of IMCI. Two review authors independently screened searches, selected trials, and extracted, analysed and tabulated data. We used inverse variance for cluster trials and an intracluster co-efficient of 0.01 when adjustment had not been made in the primary study. We used the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation Working Group) approach to assess the certainty of evidence. Two cluster-randomised trials (India and Bangladesh) and two controlled before-after studies (Tanzania and India) met our inclusion criteria. Strategies included training of health care staff, management strengthening of health care systems (all four studies), and home visiting (two studies). The two studies from India included care packages targeting the neonatal period.One trial in Bangladesh estimated that child mortality may be 13% lower with IMCI, but the confidence interval (CI) included no effect (risk ratio (RR) 0.87, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.10; 5090 participants; low-certainty evidence). One CBA study in Tanzania gave almost identical estimates (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.05; 1932 participants).One trial in India examined infant and neonatal mortality by implementing the integrated management of neonatal and childhood illness (IMNCI) strategy including post-natal home visits. Neonatal and infant mortality may be lower in the IMNCI group compared with the control group (infant mortality hazard ratio (HR) 0.85, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.94; neonatal mortality HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.03; one trial, 60,480 participants; low-certainty evidence).We estimated the effect of IMCI on any mortality measured by combining infant and child mortality in the one IMCI and the one IMNCI trial. Mortality may be reduced by IMCI (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.93; two trials, 65,570 participants; low-certainty evidence).Two trials (India, Bangladesh) evaluated nutritional status and noted that there may be little or no effect on stunting (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.06; 5242 participants, two trials; low-certainty evidence) and there is probably little or no effect on wasting (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.25; two trials, 4288 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).The Tanzania CBA study showed similar results.Investigators measured quality of care by observing prescribing for common illnesses at health facilities (727 observations, two studies; very low-certainty evidence) and by observing prescribing by lay health care workers (1051 observations, three studies; very low-certainty evidence). We could not confirm a consistent effect on prescribing at health facilities or by lay health care workers, as certainty of the evidence was very low.For coverage of IMCI deliverables, we examined vaccine and vitamin A coverage, appropriate care seeking, and exclusive breast feeding. Two trials (India, Bangladesh) estimated vaccine coverage for measles and reported that there is probably little or no effect on measles vaccine coverage (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.05; two trials, 4895 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), with similar effects seen in the Tanzania CBA study. Two studies measured the third dose of diphtheria, pertussis, and tetanus vaccine; and two measured vitamin A coverage, all providing little or no evidence of increased coverage with IMCI.Four studies (2 from India, and 1 each from Tanzania and Bangladesh) reported appropriate care seeking and derived information from careful questioning of mothers about recent illness. Some studies on effects of IMCI may report better care seeking behavior, but others do not report this.All four studies recorded maternal responses on exclusive breast feeding. They provided mixed results and very low-certainty evidence. Therefore, we do not know whether IMCI impacts exclusive breast feeding.No studies reported on the satisfaction of mothers and service users. The mix of interventions examined in research studies evaluating the IMCI strategy varies, and some studies include specific inputs to improve neonatal health. Most studies were conducted in South Asia. Implementing the integrated management of childhood illness strategy may reduce child mortality, and packages that include interventions for the neonatal period may reduce infant mortality. IMCI may have little or no effect on nutritional status and probably has little or no effect on vaccine coverage. Maternal care seeking behavior may be more appropriate with IMCI, but study results have been mixed, providing evidence of very low certainty about whether IMCI has effects on adherence to exclusive breast feeding.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 40 tweeters 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 483 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 2 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 480 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 118 24%
Researcher 72 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 61 13%
Student > Bachelor 34 7%
Student > Postgraduate 32 7%
Other 88 18%
Unknown 78 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 161 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 97 20%
Social Sciences 33 7%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 15 3%
Psychology 15 3%
Other 51 11%
Unknown 111 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 82. 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 26 April 2017.
All research outputs
#225,788
of 14,260,037 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#529
of 10,932 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,635
of 263,066 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#17
of 146 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,260,037 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,932 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 263,066 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 146 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.