| Title |
Exploring antiretroviral treatment adherence in an urban setting in South Africa
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Public Health Policy, July 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1057/jphp.2011.22 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jane Goudge, Bulelwa Ngoma |
| Abstract |
Antiretroviral treatment requires high levels of adherence to be effective. This qualitative study explores the reasons for poor adherence among 22 purposively selected poor urban participants in South Africa. Over a 4-month period in 2009, we prospectively investigated experiences of HIV diagnosis and treatment, adherence, and withdrawal from treatment. Patients with no stable food sources faced significant barriers in adhering to treatment regimens and staying sufficiently healthy to search for, obtain or retain a job. The narratives also identify the influence on adherence of self-esteem and social support, vulnerability generated by ill health, gendered conflict, social inequities amplified by HIV, and exhaustion due to the social burden of the epidemic. Multi-dimensional, inter-sectoral programs that tackle the social determinants of health, such as food insecurity, poverty, gendered inequities, and treatment adherence are more likely to be successful, than single interventions to support adherence. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| South Africa | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 96 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 95 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 17 | 18% |
| Researcher | 14 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 14 | 15% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 8 | 8% |
| Other | 7 | 7% |
| Other | 18 | 19% |
| Unknown | 18 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 24 | 25% |
| Social Sciences | 19 | 20% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 7% |
| Psychology | 5 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 14 | 15% |
| Unknown | 23 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 22 December 2011.
All research outputs
#14,141,030
of 22,659,164 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Public Health Policy
#627
of 776 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#79,820
of 116,197 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Public Health Policy
#8
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,659,164 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 776 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.3. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% 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 116,197 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.