↓ Skip to main content

Guards in Prisons: A Risk Group for Latent Tuberculosis Infection

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
40 Mendeley
Title
Guards in Prisons: A Risk Group for Latent Tuberculosis Infection
Published in
Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health, May 2018
DOI 10.1007/s10903-018-0746-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Luisa Arroyave, Yoav Keynan, Deny Sanchez, Lucelly López, Diana Marin, Maryluz Posada, Zulma Vanessa Rueda

Abstract

To determine the prevalence and incidence of LTBI among prison guards and to the risk factors associated with infection. Two male prisons in Medellín and Itaguí, Colombia. A cohort study was conducted in adult prison guards that consented to participate. Exclusion criteria included: previous or current active TB, or conditions that preclude TST administration. We screened 194 guards and completed 155 TST administrations. The prevalence of LTBI was 55.8% in prison one, and 39.1% in prison two. The risk factors associated with LTBI diagnosis included drug use at least once in a lifetime (PR: 1.75; 95% CI 1.42-2.15) and male sex (PR: 2.16; 95% CI 1.01-4.62). The cumulative incidence of TST conversion over 6 months was 3.2%. All conversions occurred in prison 1. Our findings suggest an occupational risk for LTBI prevalence and incidence among guards (different prevalence and incidence according to the prison they work).

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 40 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 15%
Student > Bachelor 5 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 8%
Student > Postgraduate 3 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 8%
Other 6 15%
Unknown 14 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 20%
Psychology 4 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 5%
Unspecified 2 5%
Other 5 13%
Unknown 16 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 13 July 2020.
All research outputs
#3,764,229
of 23,867,274 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health
#205
of 1,261 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#71,125
of 330,054 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health
#4
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,867,274 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,261 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. 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 330,054 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 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.