| Title |
Mixed-Methods Evaluation of a Novel, Structured, Community-Based Support and Education Intervention for Individuals with HIV/AIDS in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
AIDS and Behavior, April 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10461-016-1386-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Christopher Kemp, Emily Gerth-Guyette, Lungile Dube, Michele Andrasik, Deepa Rao |
| Abstract |
People living with HIV in Sub-Saharan Africa face significant challenges accessing care. Community-based peer support groups can increase linkage to treatment, though the effectiveness of structured, scalable groups has not been demonstrated. This study aimed to measure the impact of the structured Integrated Access to Care and Treatment intervention on clients' knowledge, attitudes, and practice regarding HIV/AIDS, including their experiences of stigma, in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Data collection involved pre-/post-tests and client interviews. Pre-/post-test data from 66 clients were collected. 17 participants were interviewed. Paired t-tests did not detect significant changes in the main outcomes. Qualitative results suggested a psychosocial benefit as participants connected with their peers, expressed themselves openly, and re-engaged with their communities. Unfortunately, this study did not quantitatively measure psychosocial changes, and the results have limited generalizability to men. I ACT may be an effective complement to clinic-based support services, though further study should quantify the psychosocial benefit. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 120 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 120 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 27 | 23% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 10% |
| Researcher | 11 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 9 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 8% |
| Other | 17 | 14% |
| Unknown | 35 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 17 | 14% |
| Social Sciences | 17 | 14% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 16 | 13% |
| Psychology | 13 | 11% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 13 | 11% |
| Unknown | 41 | 34% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 13 December 2016.
All research outputs
#19,246,640
of 23,849,058 outputs
Outputs from AIDS and Behavior
#3,007
of 3,566 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#223,549
of 303,256 outputs
Outputs of similar age from AIDS and Behavior
#71
of 83 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,849,058 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% 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 8th percentile – i.e., 8% 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 303,256 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 83 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.