Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30274416›Full record

ArticleTropical medicine and infectious disease2018

Use of Intermittent Preventive Treatment among Pregnant Women in Sub-Saharan Africa: Evidence from Malaria Indicator Surveys.

Sanni Yaya, Olalekan A Uthman, Agbessi Amouzou, Ghose Bishwajit

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Tropical medicine and infectious disease, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 50 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
50citing 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

50 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. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Investigating the dynamics ofOpen research Europe · 2025
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

4 authors.

Sanni YayaSchool of International Development and Global Studies, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON K1N 6N5, Canada. sanni.yaya@uottawa.ca.ORCID 0000-0002-4876-6043
Olalekan A UthmanWarwick Centre for Applied Health Research and Delivery (WCAHRD), Division of Health Sciences, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, UK. olalekan.uthman@warwick.ac.uk.
Agbessi AmouzouBloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA. aamouzo1@jhu.edu.
Ghose BishwajitSchool of International Development and Global Studies, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON K1N 6N5, Canada. brammaputram@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0003-4461-3821

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Uptake of intermittent preventive therapy in pregnancy (IPTp) with sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine (IPTp-SP) is a clinically-proven method to prevent the adverse outcomes of malaria in pregnancy (MiP) for the mother, her foetus, and the neonates. The majority of countries in sub-Saharan Africa have introduced IPTp policies for pregnant women during the past decade. Nonetheless, progress towards improving IPTp coverage remains dismal, with widespread regional and socioeconomic disparities in the utilisation of this highly cost-effective service. In the present study, our main objective was to measure the prevalence of IPTp uptake in selected malaria-endemic countries in sub-Saharan Africa, and to investigate the patterns of IPTp uptake among different educational and wealth categories adjusted for relevant sociodemographic factors. For this study, cross-sectional data on 18,603 women aged between 15 and 49 years were collected from the Malaria Indicator Surveys (MIS) conducted in Burkina Faso, Ghana, Mali, Malawi, Kenya, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, and Uganda. The outcome variable was taking three doses of IPTp-SP in the last pregnancy, defined as adequate by the WHO. According to the analysis, the overall prevalence of taking three doses of IPTp-SP in the latest pregnancy was 29.5% (95% CI = 28.2⁻30.5), with the prevalence being highest for Ghana (60%, 95% CI = 57.1⁻62.8), followed by Kenya (37%, 95% CI = 35.3⁻39.2) and Sierra Leone (31%, 95% CI = 29.2⁻33.4). Women from non-poor households (richer-20.7%, middle-21.2%, richest-18.1%) had a slightly higher proportion of taking three doses of IPTp-SP compared with those from poorest (19.0%) and poorer (21.1%) households. Regression analysis revealed an inverse association between uptake of IPTp-SP and educational level. With regard to wealth status, compared with women living in the richest households, those in the poorest, poorer, middle, and richer households had significantly higher odds of not taking at least three doses of IPTp-SP during their last pregnancy. The present study concludes that the prevalence of IPTp-SP is still alarmingly low and is significantly associated with individual education and household wealth gradient. Apart from the key finding of socioeconomic disparities within countries, were the between-country variations that should be regarded as a marker of inadequate policy and healthcare system performance in the respective countries. More in-depth and longitudinal studies are required to understand the barriers to, and preferences of, using IPTp-SP among women from different socioeconomic backgrounds.

Indexed as

IPTpMalaria Indicator Surveymalaria in pregnancysub-Saharan Africa

Identifiers

PMID30274416
PMCPMC6136633

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.