| Title |
Improving PrEP Implementation Through Multilevel Interventions: A Synthesis of the Literature
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
AIDS and Behavior, June 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10461-018-2184-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Rogério M. Pinto, Kathryn R. Berringer, Rita Melendez, Okeoma Mmeje |
| Abstract |
There are many challenges to accessing PrEP and thus low uptake in the United States. This review (2007-2017) of PrEP implementation identified barriers to PrEP and interventions to match those barriers. The final set of articles (n = 47) included content on cognitive aspects of HIV service providers and individuals at risk for infection, reviews, and case studies. Cognitive barriers and interventions regarding patients and providers included knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs about PrEP. The "purview paradox" was identified as a key barrier-HIV specialists often do not see HIV-negative patients, while primary care physicians, who often see uninfected patients, are not trained to provide PrEP. Healthcare systems barriers included lack of communication about, funding for, and access to PrEP. The intersection between PrEP-stigma, HIV-stigma, transphobia, homophobia, and disparities across gender, racial, and ethnic groups were identified; but few interventions addressed these barriers. We recommend multilevel interventions targeting barriers at multiple socioecological domains. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 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 | 42% |
| Netherlands | 2 | 17% |
| France | 1 | 8% |
| Chile | 1 | 8% |
| Canada | 1 | 8% |
| South Africa | 1 | 8% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 8% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 10 | 83% |
| Scientists | 2 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 225 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 225 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 32 | 14% |
| Researcher | 30 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 23 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 19 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 19 | 8% |
| Other | 34 | 15% |
| Unknown | 68 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 35 | 16% |
| Social Sciences | 34 | 15% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 28 | 12% |
| Psychology | 13 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 3% |
| Other | 26 | 12% |
| Unknown | 83 | 37% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 132. 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 15 July 2019.
All research outputs
#314,604
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from AIDS and Behavior
#25
of 3,689 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,950
of 343,066 outputs
Outputs of similar age from AIDS and Behavior
#2
of 105 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,689 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. 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 343,066 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 105 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.