↓ Skip to main content

Identification of Evidence-Based Interventions for Promoting HIV Medication Adherence: Findings from a Systematic Review of U.S.-Based Studies, 1996–2011

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
15 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
52 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
129 Mendeley
Title
Identification of Evidence-Based Interventions for Promoting HIV Medication Adherence: Findings from a Systematic Review of U.S.-Based Studies, 1996–2011
Published in
AIDS and Behavior, September 2013
DOI 10.1007/s10461-013-0594-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mahnaz R. Charania, Khiya J. Marshall, Cynthia M. Lyles, Nicole Crepaz, Linda S. Kay, Linda J. Koenig, Paul J. Weidle, David W. Purcell, HIV/AIDS Prevention Research Synthesis (PRS) Team

Abstract

A systematic review was conducted to identify evidence-based interventions (EBIs) for increasing HIV medication adherence behavior or decreasing HIV viral load among persons living with HIV (PLWH). We conducted automated searches of electronic databases (i.e., MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL) and manual searches of journals, reference lists, and listservs. Interventions were eligible for the review if they were U.S.-based, published between 1996 and 2011, intended to improve HIV medication adherence behaviors of PLWH, evaluated the intervention using a comparison group, and reported outcome data on adherence behaviors or HIV viral load. Each intervention was evaluated on the quality of study design, implementation, analysis, and strength of findings. Of the 65 eligible interventions, 10 are EBIs. The remaining 55 interventions failed to meet the efficacy criteria primarily due to null findings, small sample sizes, or low retention rates. Research gaps and future directions for development of adherence EBIs are discussed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 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 129 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 129 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 25 19%
Researcher 21 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 8%
Student > Postgraduate 9 7%
Other 27 21%
Unknown 20 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 34 26%
Psychology 18 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 12%
Social Sciences 11 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 2%
Other 18 14%
Unknown 29 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 17 January 2014.
All research outputs
#3,363,352
of 23,849,058 outputs
Outputs from AIDS and Behavior
#490
of 3,566 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#30,313
of 204,378 outputs
Outputs of similar age from AIDS and Behavior
#12
of 68 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,849,058 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
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 has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its peers.
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 204,378 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 68 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.