You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Facilitators of HCV treatment adherence among people who inject drugs: a systematic qualitative review and implications for scale up of direct acting antivirals
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Public Health, September 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12889-016-3671-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Zachary C. Rich, Carissa Chu, Jessica Mao, Kali Zhou, Weiping Cai, Qingyan Ma, Paul Volberding, Joseph D. Tucker |
| Abstract |
While the public health benefits of new HCV treatments depend on treatment adherence, particularly among people who inject drugs (PWID), several social and medical factors can jeopardize treatment adherence. The aim of this study is to examine the qualitative literature on facilitators to HCV treatment adherence among PWID. We searched six databases to identify qualitative research studies on HCV treatment adherence facilitators among PWID. Two reviewers independently extracted and analyzed data using PRISMA guidelines and the CASP tool to evaluate study quality. From ten studies representing data from 525 participants, three major themes emerged across studies: logistical facilitators within health systems enhanced HCV treatment adherence, positive social interactions between PWID and staff provided positive feedback during treatment, and HCV treatment may complicate the addiction recovery process. Although PWID face several barriers to adherence, we identified treatment adherence facilitators that could be incorporated into clinical practice. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 | 2 | 50% |
| Australia | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 50% |
| Scientists | 1 | 25% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 76 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 75 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 18 | 24% |
| Researcher | 10 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 7% |
| Other | 15 | 20% |
| Unknown | 16 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 24 | 32% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 10 | 13% |
| Social Sciences | 6 | 8% |
| Psychology | 3 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 14 | 18% |
| Unknown | 17 | 22% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 2016.
All research outputs
#2,615,182
of 22,889,074 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#2,988
of 14,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#46,058
of 320,232 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#71
of 301 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,889,074 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 320,232 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 301 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.