↓ Skip to main content

Limited Uptake of Hepatitis C Treatment Among Injection Drug Users

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Community Health, December 2007
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 (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
2 policy sources
twitter
6 X users

Readers on

mendeley
128 Mendeley
Title
Limited Uptake of Hepatitis C Treatment Among Injection Drug Users
Published in
Journal of Community Health, December 2007
DOI 10.1007/s10900-007-9083-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shruti H. Mehta, Becky L. Genberg, Jacquie Astemborski, Ravi Kavasery, Gregory D. Kirk, David Vlahov, Steffanie A. Strathdee, David L. Thomas

Abstract

We characterized hepatitis C virus (HCV) treatment knowledge, experience and barriers in a cohort of community-based injection drug users (IDUs) in Baltimore, MD. In 2005, a questionnaire on HCV treatment knowledge, experience and barriers was administered to HCV-infected IDUs. Self-reported treatment was confirmed from medical records. Of 597 participants, 71% were male, 95% African-American, 31% HIV co-infected and 94% were infected with HCV genotype 1; 70% were aware that treatment was available, but only 22% understood that HCV could be cured. Of 418 who had heard of treatment, 86 (21%) reported an evaluation by a provider that included a discussion of treatment of whom 30 refused treatment, 20 deferred and 36 reported initiating treatment (6% overall). The most common reasons for refusal were related to treatment-related perceptions and a low perceived need of treatment. Compared to those who had discussed treatment with their provider, those who had not were more likely to be injecting drugs, less likely to have health insurance, and less knowledgeable about treatment. Low HCV treatment effectiveness was observed in this IDU population. Comprehensive integrated care strategies that incorporate education, case-management and peer support are needed to improve care and treatment of HCV-infected IDUs.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 128 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 2%
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 125 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 24 19%
Student > Master 24 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 9%
Other 11 9%
Other 21 16%
Unknown 19 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 30 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 19 15%
Social Sciences 19 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 9%
Psychology 7 5%
Other 19 15%
Unknown 23 18%
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 06 December 2016.
All research outputs
#3,222,106
of 22,727,570 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Community Health
#204
of 1,212 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,614
of 156,064 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Community Health
#2
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,727,570 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 1,212 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 156,064 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.