↓ Skip to main content

Diffusion of Newer HIV Prevention Innovations: Variable Practices of Frontline Infectious Diseases Physicians

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Infectious Diseases, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (64th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
75 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.
Article details
Title
Diffusion of Newer HIV Prevention Innovations: Variable Practices of Frontline Infectious Diseases Physicians
Published in
Clinical Infectious Diseases, September 2015
DOI 10.1093/cid/civ736
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

 US Public Health Service guidelines recommend early initiation of antiretroviral treatment (ART) for human immunodeficiency virus infection (HIV)-infected patients and preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) as a prevention option for persons at risk for HIV acquisition. Before issuance of these guidelines, few clinicians reported prescribing early ART or PrEP.  The Emerging Infections Network, a national network of infectious diseases physicians in the United States and Canada, was surveyed in September 2014 to assess practices of adult HIV-care providers with early ART, PrEP, and other guideline-recommended HIV prevention methods.  Almost half of the 1191 active members invited (48.1%) participated; 415 (72.4%) were HIV-care providers. Most providers (86.5%) indicated that they typically recommended ART initiation at diagnosis, irrespective of CD4(+) cell count. However, for patients with a CD4(+) cell count >500/µL, clinicians would defer ART if patients did not feel ready to initiate ART (94.7%) or had uncontrolled substance abuse (66.0%). Many providers had counseled HIV-infected patients about PrEP for partners (59.0%) or offered visits for partners to discuss PrEP (40.7%), and 31.8% had prescribed PrEP. Clinicians who deferred ART were less likely to endorse and engage in aspects of PrEP provision.  Concordant with guidelines, most infectious diseases physicians recommend early ART, and many have experience with aspects of PrEP provision, suggesting recent evolution of clinician practices. Providers who defer ART are also cautious about PrEP. Interventions that help physicians motivate patients to initiate ART and identify missed opportunities to provide PrEP could enhance HIV prevention.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
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 demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 75 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
United States 2 3%
Brazil 1 1%
Unknown 72 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 16%
Researcher 11 15%
Other 6 8%
Student > Bachelor 3 4%
Other 10 13%
Unknown 19 25%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 16%
Social Sciences 9 12%
Psychology 5 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 4%
Other 9 12%
Unknown 20 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 01 November 2021.
All research outputs
#11,436,481
of 34,327,810 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Infectious Diseases
#13,664
of 21,458 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#105,201
of 310,808 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Infectious Diseases
#97
of 157 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,327,810 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 65th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 21,458 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 29.4. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% 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 310,808 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 157 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.