| Title |
Online Social Networking, Sexual Risk and Protective Behaviors: Considerations for Clinicians and Researchers
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Current Addiction Reports, June 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s40429-014-0029-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ian W. Holloway, Shannon Dunlap, Homero E. del Pino, Keith Hermanstyne, Craig Pulsipher, Raphael J. Landovitz |
| Abstract |
Online social networking refers to the use of internet-based technologies that facilitate connection and communication between users. These platforms may be accessed via computer or mobile device (e.g., tablet, smartphone); communication between users may include linking of profiles, posting of text, photo and video content, instant messaging and email. This review provides an overview of recent research on the relationship between online social networking and sexual risk and protective behaviors with a focus on use of social networking sites (SNS) among young people and populations at high risk for sexually transmitted infections (STIs). While findings are mixed, the widespread use of SNS for sexual communication and partner seeking presents opportunities for the delivery and evaluation of public health interventions. Results of SNS-based interventions to reduce sexual risk are synthesized in order to offer hands-on advice for clinicians and researchers interested in engaging patients and study participants via online social networking. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 | 2 | 50% |
| Canada | 1 | 25% |
| India | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 75% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 137 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 4 | 3% |
| Chile | 1 | <1% |
| Norway | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 131 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 22 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 21 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 18 | 13% |
| Researcher | 13 | 9% |
| Professor | 7 | 5% |
| Other | 26 | 19% |
| Unknown | 30 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 23 | 17% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 21 | 15% |
| Psychology | 18 | 13% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 10 | 7% |
| Computer Science | 5 | 4% |
| Other | 25 | 18% |
| Unknown | 35 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 01 January 2018.
All research outputs
#3,945,790
of 22,783,848 outputs
Outputs from Current Addiction Reports
#74
of 321 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,024
of 228,281 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Addiction Reports
#5
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,783,848 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 321 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 76% 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 228,281 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 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.