| Title |
Computer-based HIV adherence promotion interventions: a systematic review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Translational Behavioral Medicine, June 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s13142-015-0317-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Kasey R. Claborn, Anne Fernandez, Tyler Wray, Susan Ramsey |
| Abstract |
Researchers have instituted a range of methodologies to increase access to HIV adherence interventions. This article reviews studies published through January 2014 utilizing computer-based delivery of such interventions to persons living with HIV. A systematic review of five databases identified ten studies (three RCTs, three pilot studies, three feasibility studies, and one single-group trial) that met the inclusion criteria. Descriptions of the interventions' content and characteristics are included. Interventions varied widely in terms of program structure, theoretical framework, and content. Only six studies reported medication adherence outcomes. Of these, four (five RCTS and one single group pre-post test) reported significant improvement in adherence using various measures, and two approached significance. Results suggest that computer-delivered adherence interventions are feasible and acceptable among both HIV-positive adolescents and adults. Definitive conclusions regarding clinical impact cannot be drawn due to the small number of adequately powered randomized trials in this review. Additional randomized controlled research is needed to draw inferences regarding intervention efficacy. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 71 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 71 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 13 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 10 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 7 | 10% |
| Unknown | 21 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 10 | 14% |
| Psychology | 10 | 14% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 11% |
| Social Sciences | 7 | 10% |
| Computer Science | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 10 | 14% |
| Unknown | 23 | 32% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 04 October 2015.
All research outputs
#18,936,064
of 24,132,754 outputs
Outputs from Translational Behavioral Medicine
#857
of 1,043 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#184,782
of 271,095 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Translational Behavioral Medicine
#11
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,132,754 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,043 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.8. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 271,095 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 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.