↓ Skip to main content

Social Environmental Factors and Condom Use Among Female Injection Drug Users who are Sex Workers in China

Overview of attention for article published in AIDS and Behavior, February 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
34 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
99 Mendeley
Title
Social Environmental Factors and Condom Use Among Female Injection Drug Users who are Sex Workers in China
Published in
AIDS and Behavior, February 2013
DOI 10.1007/s10461-013-0434-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jing Gu, Yu Bai, Joseph T. F. Lau, Yuantao Hao, Yu Cheng, Runan Zhou, Chengpu Yu

Abstract

In order to understand the social environmental forces faced by females involved in both injection drug use and sex work, and their associations with condom use during commercial sex, 200 participants were recruited using snowball sampling methods in Liuzhou, China. Of the participants, 41.0% used condoms consistently during commercial sex in the last 6 months. Adjusting for significant background variables, factors significantly associated with consistent condom use included: monthly income, soliciting venue, pattern of sex-work organization, experience of violence, social support, others' support of condom use, and utilization of HIV/STI-related services. In the final multivariate model, history of violence (OR = 0.39, 95% CI = 0.12-0.44), service utilization (OR = 2.18, 95% CI = 1.05-5.20), clients' willingness to use condoms (OR = 2.63, 95% CI = 1.06-6.54) and social support (OR = 0.39, 95% CI = 0.12-0.44) were significant. Service gaps for FSW-IDU exist, and expansion of social services and integration of psychosocial interventions are necessary.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 99 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
China 1 1%
Unknown 98 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 26 26%
Researcher 12 12%
Student > Bachelor 10 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 6%
Other 6 6%
Other 13 13%
Unknown 26 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 22%
Social Sciences 15 15%
Psychology 12 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 11%
Chemistry 3 3%
Other 7 7%
Unknown 29 29%
Attention Score in Context

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 24 March 2013.
All research outputs
#14,906,966
of 23,849,058 outputs
Outputs from AIDS and Behavior
#2,227
of 3,566 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#113,331
of 195,162 outputs
Outputs of similar age from AIDS and Behavior
#30
of 59 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,849,058 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,566 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% 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 195,162 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 59 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.