| Title |
At the Edge? HIV Stigma and Centrality in a Community’s Social Network in Namibia
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
AIDS and Behavior, February 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10461-012-0154-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Rachel A. Smith, Michelle Baker |
| Abstract |
Social network analysis was used to examine the relationship between HIV/AIDS stigmatization, perceived risk, and centrality in the community network (via participation in community groups). The findings from respondents in Keetmanshoop, Namibia (N = 375) showed an interaction between stigma and risk perceptions\hose who perceived higher HIV risk and stronger HIV stigma participated in fewer community groups and participated in groups with members who participated less widely across the network. In contrast, those who perceived higher HIV risk and weaker HIV stigma participated more, and were in community groups that are located on a greater share of the paths between entities in the network. Taboo, secrecy, resistance, knowing a person living with HIV/AIDS, and desire for diagnosis secrecy were also related to centrality. Findings suggest that the interaction of perceived HIV risk and HIV stigma are related to structural-level features of community networks based on participation in community groups. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 70 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 70 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 13 | 19% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 17% |
| Researcher | 8 | 11% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 5 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 15 | 21% |
| Unknown | 13 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 20 | 29% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 8 | 11% |
| Psychology | 8 | 11% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 10 | 14% |
| Unknown | 15 | 21% |
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 17 February 2012.
All research outputs
#21,186,729
of 23,849,058 outputs
Outputs from AIDS and Behavior
#3,266
of 3,566 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#231,169
of 254,885 outputs
Outputs of similar age from AIDS and Behavior
#42
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,849,058 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 254,885 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 45 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.