| Literature DB >> 29202100 |
Bolatito Aiyenigba1, Abiodun Ojo2, Adolor Aisiri2, Justus Uzim1, Oluwole Adeusi1, Halima Mwenesi3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Rapid and precise diagnosis of malaria is an essential element in effective case management and control of malaria. Malaria microscopy is used as the gold standard for malaria diagnosis, however results remain poor as positivity rate in Nigeria is consistently over 90%. The United States President's Malaria Initiative (PMI) through the Malaria Action Program for States (MAPS) supported selected states in Nigeria to build capacity for malaria microscopy. This study demonstrates the effectiveness of in-service training on malaria microscopy amongst medical laboratory scientists.Entities:
Keywords: Malaria; Microscopy; Nigeria; Training
Year: 2017 PMID: 29202100 PMCID: PMC5683359 DOI: 10.1186/s41256-017-0051-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Glob Health Res Policy ISSN: 2397-0642
Fig. 1WHO standard slide panel used for assessment
Distribution of general characteristics of medical laboratory scientist trained on malaria microscopy
| Characteristics | Frequency | |
|---|---|---|
| Sex | Male | 76 (70.4) |
| Female | 32 (29.6) | |
| Type of health facility | Secondary | 100 (92.6) |
| Tertiary | 8 (7.4) | |
| State | Cross River | 29 (26.9) |
| Ebonyi | 10 (9.3) | |
| Kogi | 29 (26.9) | |
| Nasarawa | 18 (16.7) | |
| Zamfara | 22 (20.4) | |
| *WHO Expert level | Level 1 | 0 (0.0) |
| Level 2 | 1 (0.9) | |
| Level 3 | 3 (2.8) | |
| Level 4 | 104 (96.3) | |
*Microscopists are categorized into four levels following a competency assessment implemented/supervised by WHO and based on WHO curriculum, level 1 is the highest skilled level
Results of test of significance of mean pre-and post-test scores using paired sample t-test
| Category of test | Pre-test | Post-test |
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean (%) | 95% CI | Mean | (95% CI) | ||
| Slide Reading Tests | |||||
| Detection | 53.9 | 51.4–56.4 | 70.7 | 67.8–73.6 | <0.001 |
| Speciation | 18.9 | 16.0–21.7 | 38.3 | 34.5–42.0 | <0.001 |
| Specificity Test | 45.7 | 40.9–50.5 | 62.4 | 57.6–67.2 | <0.001 |
| Sensitivity Test | 60.9 | 56.7–65.0 | 78.4 | 75.4–81.5 | <0.001 |
| Counting Test | 4.2 | 2.6–5.7 | 27.9 | 25.3–30.5 | <0.001 |
| Computer-Based Tests | |||||
| Picture Detection | 69.3 | 66.2–72.4 | 89.2 | 87.3–91.1 | <0.001 |
| Picture Speciation | 24.6 | 21.2–28.0 | 63.0 | 60.0–66.1 | <0.001 |
| Picture Staging | 33.4 | 29.6–37.3 | 73.5 | 71.0–76.1 | <0.001 |
| Written Test | |||||
| Writing Test | 37.9 | 36.2–39.6 | 70.7 | 68.4–73.1 | <0.001 |
Results of test of significance using paired t-test to compare Speciation Tests for slide reading and computer based picture pre-and post-tests
| Category of test | Mean test score (95% CI) |
|
|---|---|---|
| Slide reading Speciation pre-test | 18.9 (16.0–21.7%) | 0.10 |
| Computer based picture Speciation pre-test | 24.6 (21.2–28.0%) | |
| Slide reading Speciation post-test | 38.3 (34.5–42.0%) | <0.001 |
| Computer based picture Speciation post-test | 63.0 (60.0–66.1%) |
Results of test of significance using paired t-test to compare Detection Tests for Slide reading and Computer based picture pre-and post-tests
| Category of test | Mean test score (95% CI) |
|
|---|---|---|
| Slide reading detection pre-test | 53.9 (51.4–56.5%) | <0.001 |
| Computer based picture detection pre-test | 69.3 (66.2–72.4%) | |
| Slide reading detection post-test | 70.7 (67.8–73.6%) | <0.001 |
| Computer based picture detection post-test | 89.2 (87.3–91.1%) |