↓ Skip to main content

Hepatitis C among blood donors: cascade of care and predictors of loss to follow-up

Overview of attention for article published in Revista de Saúde Pública, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
34 Mendeley
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.
Title
Hepatitis C among blood donors: cascade of care and predictors of loss to follow-up
Published in
Revista de Saúde Pública, April 2017
DOI 10.1590/s1518-8787.2017051006468
Pubmed ID
Authors

Soraia Mafra Machado, Cesar de Almeida, João Renato Rebello Pinho, Fernanda de Mello Malta, Ligia Capuani, Aléia Faustina Campos, Fatima Regina Marques Abreu, Ana Catharina de Seixas Santos Nastri, Rúbia Anita Ferraz Santana, Ester Cerdeira Sabino, Maria Cássia Mendes-Correa

Abstract

To investigate the HCV cascade of care and to identify the factors associated with loss or absence to follow-up of patients identified as infected with hepatitis C through blood donation. Blood donors from 1994 to 2012, identified with positive anti- HCV by enzyme immunoassay and immunoblot tests were invited to participate in the study, through letters or phone calls. Patients who agreed to participate were interviewed and their blood samples were collected for further testing. The following variables were investigated: demographic data, data on comorbidities and history concerning monitoring of hepatitis C. Multiple regression analysis by Poisson regression model was used to investigate the factors associated with non-referral for consultation or loss of follow-up. Of the 2,952 HCV-infected blood donors, 22.8% agreed to participate: 394 (58.2%) male, median age 48 years old and 364 (53.8%) Caucasian. Of the 676 participants, 39.7% did not receive proper follow-up or treatment after diagnosis: 45 patients referred not to be aware they were infected, 61 did not seek medical attention and 163 started a follow-up program, but were non-adherent. The main reasons for inadequate follow-up were not understanding the need for medical care (71%) and health care access difficulties (14%). The variables showing a significant association with inadequate follow-up after multiple regression analysis were male gender (PR = 1.40; 95%CI 1.15-1.71), age under or equal to 50 years (PR = 1.36; 95%CI 1.12-1.65) and non-Caucasians (PR = 1.53; 95%CI 1.27-1.84). About 40.0% of patients did not receive appropriate follow-up. These data reinforce the need to establish strong links between primary care and reference centers and the need to improve access to specialists and treatments.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 34 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 21%
Student > Master 5 15%
Student > Postgraduate 4 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 9%
Student > Bachelor 2 6%
Other 6 18%
Unknown 7 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 32%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 18%
Mathematics 2 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 3%
Other 4 12%
Unknown 8 24%
Attention Score in Context

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 27 June 2017.
All research outputs
#16,725,651
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Revista de Saúde Pública
#601
of 1,138 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#195,340
of 323,433 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Revista de Saúde Pública
#20
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,138 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% 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 323,433 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.