↓ Skip to main content

Investigating Responses to Food Insecurity Among HIV Positive People in Resource Rich Settings: A Systematic Review

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Community Health, April 2017
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
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
78 Mendeley
Title
Investigating Responses to Food Insecurity Among HIV Positive People in Resource Rich Settings: A Systematic Review
Published in
Journal of Community Health, April 2017
DOI 10.1007/s10900-017-0351-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

F. H. McKay, K. Lippi, M. Dunn

Abstract

Many of the 36.7 million people living with HIV are also assumed to be food insecure. The implications of food insecurity in people living with HIV are significant, with food insecurity associated with an increased likelihood of tobacco, alcohol, and illicit drug use, experiences of depression or depressive symptoms, poor adherence and delayed uptake of HIV medication, nutritional vulnerability leading to interference of medication, and the uptake of risky behaviours as a way to gain access to food resources. This review sought to present the current intervention research around the experiences of food insecurity in PLWHA in high resource countries to determine successful models to address the issue. Only five articles were identified in a systematic search, three reported on studies that were conducted in the USA and two in Canada. Two articles were cross sectional, one was a program evaluation, one ethnography, and one took a qualitative approach. This review highlights a lack of published research in the area of HIV and food insecurity in resource rich countries. The findings of this study suggest that there are currently no standard or best practice ways to provide food aid to PLWHA to reduce food security. The lack of published results means that while there may be good programs operating in the community, this information and knowledge is not being shared, resulting in a lack of consistency in approach, possible duplication, and the potential for wasted resources. Overall, this review suggests a need for more dedicated evaluation and longitudinal research.

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 78 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 78 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 14 18%
Researcher 10 13%
Student > Master 10 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 10%
Student > Postgraduate 3 4%
Other 8 10%
Unknown 25 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 19%
Social Sciences 11 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 13%
Psychology 5 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 1%
Other 7 9%
Unknown 29 37%
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 18 April 2017.
All research outputs
#14,795,827
of 23,674,309 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Community Health
#808
of 1,250 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#174,722
of 311,242 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Community Health
#22
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,674,309 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 1,250 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.0. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% 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 311,242 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.