ArticleMalaria journal2024
Simulated Malaria Online Tool: an instrument for evaluating healthcare providers' practices and contributing to the evidence base for certifying malaria elimination and preventing its re-establishment.
Article in Malaria journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHealthcare providers (HCPs) practice and correct management of suspected malaria (CMSM) are central components of malaria elimination and prevention of re-establishment (POR) in countries in the elimination phase. However, knowledge of malaria surveillance systems and HCPs practices often wanes in countries aiming to eliminate malaria due to the low numbers of cases. The study aimed to implement a valid Simulated Malaria Online Tool (SMOT) for assessment HCP performance in CMSM and POR in a malaria-free area.
methodsHCPs were evaluated using SMOT tool based on four criteria including presenting a suspected malaria case for detection of HCPs' failures in recognition (a), diagnosis (b), appropriate treatment (c), and urgent reporting (d); and compared with simulated patients (SP). Multiple logistic regression analysis was carried out to estimate adjusted odds ratios (ORs) for the risk of HCPs failures.
resultsThe overall failure proportion was 237 (83%), and the majority of failures were in recognition (a). There was no significant difference between the SMOT and SP based on all failure criteria (P > 0.05). The private clinic (93%) and the public specialized clinic (70%) had the highest and lowest failure proportions. After passing the recognition stage (a), the overall failure proportions decreased to 47.8% and 25.0% for total HCPs and infectious disease specialists, respectively. In the final analysis, private sector (AOR = 4.36: 1.25-15.2), not-specialist providers (AOR = 2.84: 1.29-6.25) and HCPs with ≥ 5 years' experience (AOR = 2.03: 1.01-6.25) increased the risk of failure.
conclusionFindings confirmed the implementation of SMOT tool in settings where malaria transmission is low or interrupted. The tool is able to identify sub-groups of providers needing strengthening, and contributes to the prevention of malaria re-establishment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.