Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19589164›Full record

Trial reportBMC pregnancy and childbirth2009

Knowledge and utilization of intermittent preventive treatment for malaria among pregnant women attending antenatal clinics in primary health care centers in rural southwest, Nigeria: a cross-sectional study.

Stella O Akinleye, Catherine O Falade, Ikeoluwapo O Ajayi

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 51 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
51citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

51 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Inequities in the use of sulphadoxine-pyrimethamine for malaria prophylaxis during pregnancy in Nigeria.Malawi medical journal : the journal of Medical Association of Malawi · 2020
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Stella O AkinleyeDepartment of Epidemiology, Medical Statistics and Environmental Health, College of Medicine, University of Ibadan, Nigeria. stellakinleye@yahoo.com
Catherine O Falade
Ikeoluwapo O Ajayi

Funding

International Partnership for Interdisciplinary Research TrainingD43TW009112 · FIC · UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO · PI OLOPADE, CHRISTOPHER O, OLOPADE, OLUFUNMILAYO F. · 2012 to 2016
$1.1M
FIC NIH HHS D43 TW009112
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIntermittent preventive treatment for prevention of malaria in pregnancy (IPTp) is a key component of malaria control strategy in Nigeria and sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine (SP) is the drug of choice. Despite the evidence of the effectiveness of IPTp strategy using SP in reducing the adverse effects of malaria during pregnancy the uptake and coverage in Nigeria is low. This study set out to assess the use of IPTp among pregnant women attending primary health centres in the rural area and determine factors that influence the uptake.

methodsA cross-sectional study was carried out between July and August 2007 among 209 pregnant women selected by systematic random sampling from antenatal care attendees at primary health care in a rural Local Government Area of Ekiti State, Nigeria. Information on knowledge of IPT, delivery, adherence and acceptability was obtained using an interviewer administered questionnaire. Descriptive statistics such as means, range, proportions were used. Chi-square test was used to examine association between categorical variables. All analyses were performed at 5% level of significance.

resultsOne hundred and nine of 209 (52.2%) respondents have heard about IPTp but only 26 (23.9%) were able to define it. Fifty seven (27.3%) reported to have received at least one dose of IPTp during the index pregnancy and all were among those who have heard of IPTp (52.3%). Twenty one of the 57 (36.8%) took the SP in the clinic. Only three of the twenty-one (14.3%) were supervised by a health worker. Twenty two of the 36 women (61.1%) who did not take their drugs in the clinic would have liked to do so if allowed to bring their own drinking cups. Almost half (43.9%) of those who had used IPTp during the index pregnancy expressed concern about possible adverse effect of SP on their pregnancies. Periodic shortages of SP in the clinics were also reported.

conclusionIn this study, IPTp use among pregnant women was very low and there was poor adherence to the Directly Observed Therapy (DOT) scheme. Concerted effort should be made to increase awareness of IPTp among the public especially women of child bearing age. Health workers should also be trained and monitored to ensure adherence.

Indexed as

Health Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticePatient Acceptance of Health CarePrenatal CareAdolescentAdultAnimalsAntimalarialsCross-Sectional StudiesDrug Administration ScheduleFemaleHealth Services AccessibilityHumansMalariaNigeriaPregnancyPregnancy Complications, ParasiticAntimalarials

Identifiers

PMID19589164
PMCPMC2719593

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.