| Title |
From Theory to Application: A Description of Transnationalism in Culturally-Appropriate HIV Interventions of Outreach, Access, and Retention Among Latino/a Populations
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health, May 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10903-018-0753-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
John A. Sauceda, Ronald A. Brooks, Jessica Xavier, Andres Maiorana, Lisa Georgetti Gomez, Sophia Zamudio-Haas, Carlos E. Rodriguez-Diaz, Adan Cajina, Janet Myers |
| Abstract |
Interventions aiming to improve access to and retention in HIV care are optimized when they are tailored to clients' needs. This paper describes an initiative of interventions implemented by ten demonstration sites using a transnational framework to tailor services for Mexicans and Puerto Ricans living with HIV. Transnationalism describes how immigrants (and their children) exist in their "receiving" place (e.g., continental U.S.) while simultaneously maintaining connections to their country or place of origin (e.g., Mexico). We describe interventions in terms of the strategies used, the theory informing design and the tailoring, and the integration of transnationalism. We argue how applying the transnational framework may improve the quality and effectiveness of services in response to the initiative's overall goal, which is to produce innovative, robust, evidence-informed strategies that go beyond traditional tailoring approaches for HIV interventions with Latino/as populations. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 5 | 83% |
| Unknown | 1 | 17% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 17% |
| Scientists | 1 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 63 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 63 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 8 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 11% |
| Researcher | 6 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 9 | 14% |
| Unknown | 22 | 35% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 13 | 21% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 9 | 14% |
| Psychology | 7 | 11% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 5% |
| Unspecified | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 4 | 6% |
| Unknown | 24 | 38% |
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 05 March 2021.
All research outputs
#7,219,152
of 23,867,274 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health
#530
of 1,261 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#120,079
of 331,272 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health
#29
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,867,274 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 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 gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% 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 331,272 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 63% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 37 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.