↓ Skip to main content

Accuracy of HIV Risk Perceptions Among Episodic Substance-Using Men Who Have Sex with Men

Overview of attention for article published in AIDS and Behavior, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (65th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
48 Mendeley
Title
Accuracy of HIV Risk Perceptions Among Episodic Substance-Using Men Who Have Sex with Men
Published in
AIDS and Behavior, November 2017
DOI 10.1007/s10461-017-1935-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Grace (Chela) Hall, Linda J. Koenig, Simone C. Gray, Jeffrey H. Herbst, Tim Matheson, Phillip Coffin, Jerris Raiford

Abstract

Using the HIV Incident Risk Index for men who have sex with men-an objective and validated measure of risk for HIV acquisition, and self-perceptions of belief and worry about acquiring HIV, we identified individuals who underestimated substantial risk for HIV. Data from a racially/ethnically diverse cohort of 324 HIV-negative episodic substance-using men who have sex with men (SUMSM) enrolled in a behavioral risk reduction intervention (2010-2012) were analyzed. Two hundred and fourteen (66%) SUMSM at substantial risk for HIV were identified, of whom 147 (69%, or 45% of the total sample) underestimated their risk. In multivariable regression analyses, compared to others in the cohort, SUMSM who underestimated their substantial risk were more likely to report: a recent sexually transmitted infection diagnosis, experiencing greater social isolation, and exchanging sex for drugs, money, or other goods. An objective risk screener can be valuable to providers in identifying and discussing with SUMSM factors associated with substantial HIV risk, particularly those who may not recognize their risk.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 48 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 17%
Researcher 6 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 8%
Student > Master 4 8%
Student > Bachelor 3 6%
Other 12 25%
Unknown 11 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 21%
Psychology 7 15%
Social Sciences 6 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 8%
Unspecified 3 6%
Other 6 13%
Unknown 12 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 04 January 2018.
All research outputs
#7,343,082
of 24,228,883 outputs
Outputs from AIDS and Behavior
#1,222
of 3,613 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#114,646
of 334,232 outputs
Outputs of similar age from AIDS and Behavior
#28
of 85 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,228,883 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,613 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 gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% 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 334,232 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 85 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.