↓ Skip to main content

Beyond Social Desirability Bias: Investigating Inconsistencies in Self-Reported HIV Testing and Treatment Behaviors Among HIV-Positive Adults in North West Province, South Africa

Overview of attention for article published in AIDS and Behavior, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (53rd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (59th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
42 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
69 Mendeley
Title
Beyond Social Desirability Bias: Investigating Inconsistencies in Self-Reported HIV Testing and Treatment Behaviors Among HIV-Positive Adults in North West Province, South Africa
Published in
AIDS and Behavior, May 2018
DOI 10.1007/s10461-018-2155-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alyssa C. Mooney, Chadwick K. Campbell, Mary-Jane Ratlhagana, Jessica S. Grignon, Sipho Mazibuko, Emily Agnew, Hailey Gilmore, Scott Barnhart, Adrian Puren, Starley B. Shade, Teri Liegler, Sheri A. Lippman

Abstract

This mixed-methods study used qualitative interviews to explore discrepancies between self-reported HIV care and treatment-related behaviors and the presence of antiretroviral medications (ARVs) in a population-based survey in South Africa. ARV analytes were identified among 18% of those reporting HIV-negative status and 18% of those reporting not being on ART. Among participants reporting diagnosis over a year prior, 19% reported multiple HIV tests in the past year. Qualitative results indicated that participant misunderstandings about their care and treatment played a substantial role in reporting inaccuracies. Participants conflated the term HIV test with CD4 and viral load testing, and confusion with terminology was compounded by recall difficulties. Data entry errors likely also played a role. Frequent discrepancies between biomarkers and self-reported data were more likely due to poor understanding of care and treatment and biomedical terminology than intentional misreporting. Results indicate a need for improving patient-provider communication, in addition to incorporating objective measures of treatment and care behaviors such as ARV analytes, to reduce inaccuracies.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 69 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 69 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 16%
Student > Master 11 16%
Researcher 8 12%
Student > Bachelor 5 7%
Student > Postgraduate 4 6%
Other 11 16%
Unknown 19 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 14 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 6%
Mathematics 3 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 3%
Other 14 20%
Unknown 24 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 03 December 2022.
All research outputs
#7,866,480
of 23,849,058 outputs
Outputs from AIDS and Behavior
#1,389
of 3,566 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#132,506
of 331,541 outputs
Outputs of similar age from AIDS and Behavior
#40
of 102 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,849,058 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,566 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 55% 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 331,541 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 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 102 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 59% of its contemporaries.