↓ Skip to main content

Are Peer Interventions for HIV Efficacious? A Systematic Review

Overview of attention for article published in AIDS and Behavior, May 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#2 of 3,601)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
52 news outlets
policy
1 policy source
twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
191 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
230 Mendeley
Title
Are Peer Interventions for HIV Efficacious? A Systematic Review
Published in
AIDS and Behavior, May 2011
DOI 10.1007/s10461-011-9963-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jane M. Simoni, Kimberly M. Nelson, Julie C. Franks, Samantha S. Yard, Keren Lehavot

Abstract

Behavioral interventions to prevent HIV or assist HIV-positive persons often incorporate peers, yet empirical support for their efficacy is only recently accumulating. We describe the results of a review of the global literature, identifying 117 studies evaluating the efficacy of peer-based interventions in the area of HIV/AIDS. About half were conducted in the developing world and half in Western nations. Across a range of populations and intervention modalities, the majority of studies provided some support for peer interventions according to outcome indicators in the domains of sexual risk behavior, attitudes and cognitions, HIV knowledge, and substance use. However, outcomes assessed using biomarkers and other non-self-report variables were less likely to indicate intervention efficacy. Overall, findings suggest that we can have some confidence in peer interventions, yet more data are needed demonstrating an effect in the most rigorous study designs and with outcomes that are not potentially affected by respondent bias.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 6 3%
United Kingdom 3 1%
Costa Rica 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Unknown 218 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 48 21%
Researcher 34 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 10%
Lecturer 20 9%
Student > Bachelor 11 5%
Other 41 18%
Unknown 53 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 51 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 47 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 38 17%
Psychology 10 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 3%
Other 13 6%
Unknown 65 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 422. 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 05 December 2019.
All research outputs
#62,469
of 24,047,183 outputs
Outputs from AIDS and Behavior
#2
of 3,601 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#140
of 114,377 outputs
Outputs of similar age from AIDS and Behavior
#1
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,047,183 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,601 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 particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 114,377 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.