| Title |
Assessing factors for loss to follow-up of HIV infected patients in Guinea-Bissau
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Infection, October 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s15010-016-0949-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Pernille Bejer Nordentoft, Thomas Engell-Sørensen, Sanne Jespersen, Faustino Gomes Correia, Candida Medina, David da Silva Té, Lars Østergaard, Alex Lund Laursen, Christian Wejse, Bo Langhoff Hønge, Bissau HIV Cohort study group |
| Abstract |
The objective of this study was to ascertain vital status of patients considered lost to follow-up at an HIV clinic in Guinea-Bissau, and describe reasons for loss to follow-up (LTFU). This study was a cross-sectional sample of a prospective cohort, carried out between May 15, 2013, and January 31, 2014. Patients lost to follow-up, who lived within the area of the Bandim Health Project, a demographic surveillance site (DSS), were eligible for inclusion. Active follow-up was attempted by telephone and tracing by a field assistant. Semi-structured interviews were done face to face or by phone by a field assistant and patients were asked why they had not shown up for the scheduled appointment. Patients were included by date of HIV testing and risk factors for LTFU were assessed using Cox proportional hazard model. Among 561 patients (69.5 % HIV-1, 18.0 % HIV-2 and 12.6 % HIV-1/2) living within the DSS, 292 patients had been lost to follow-up and were, therefore, eligible for active follow-up. Vital status was ascertained in 65.9 % of eligible patients and 42.7 % were alive, while 23.2 % had died. Information on reasons for LTFU existed for 103 patients. Major reasons were moving (29.1 %), travelling (17.5 %), and transferring to other clinics (11.7 %). A large proportion of the patients at the clinic were lost to follow-up. The main reason for this was found to be the geographic mobility of the population in Guinea-Bissau. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Denmark | 1 | 25% |
| United States | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 2 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 50% |
| Scientists | 1 | 25% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 48 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 48 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 9 | 19% |
| Researcher | 7 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 6% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 7 | 15% |
| Unknown | 13 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 27% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 9 | 19% |
| Unspecified | 2 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 4% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 5 | 10% |
| Unknown | 15 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 06 November 2016.
All research outputs
#13,790,011
of 22,893,031 outputs
Outputs from Infection
#867
of 1,403 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#173,263
of 319,861 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Infection
#5
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,893,031 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,403 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.5. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 319,861 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its contemporaries.