↓ Skip to main content

HIV prevention advice for people with serious mental illness

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
10 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
132 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
HIV prevention advice for people with serious mental illness
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009639.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nicola Wright, Athfah Akhtar, Graeme E Tosh, Andrew V Clifton

Abstract

People with serious mental illness have rates of Human Immuno-deficiency Virus (HIV) infection higher than expected in the general population for the same demographic area. Despite this elevated prevalence, UK national strategies around sexual health and HIV prevention do not state that people with serious mental illness are a high risk group. However, a significant proportion in this group are sexually active and engage in HIV-risk behaviours including having multiple sexual partners, infrequent use of condoms and trading sex for money or drugs. Therefore we propose the provision of HIV prevention advice could enhance the physical and social well being of this population. To assess the effects of HIV prevention advice in reducing morbidity, mortality and preserving the quality of life in people with serious mental illness. We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Trials Register (24 January 2012; 4 July 2016). We planned to include all randomised controlled trials focusing on HIV prevention advice versus standard care or comparing HIV prevention advice with other more focused methods of delivering care or information for people with serious mental illness. Review authors (NW, AC, AA, GT) independently screened search results and did not identify any studies that fulfilled the review's criteria. We did not identify any randomised studies that evaluated advice regarding HIV for people with serious mental illness. The excluded studies illustrate that randomisation of packages of care relevant to both people with serious mental illness and HIV risk are possible. Policy makers, clinicians, researchers and service users need to collaborate to produce guidance on how best to provide advice for people with serious mental illness in preventing the spread of HIV infection. It is entirely feasible that this could be within the context of a well-designed simple large randomised study.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 132 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 132 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 27 20%
Unspecified 25 19%
Researcher 23 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 14%
Student > Bachelor 12 9%
Other 26 20%
Unknown 1 <1%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 44 33%
Unspecified 34 26%
Psychology 22 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 10%
Social Sciences 10 8%
Other 8 6%
Unknown 1 <1%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 21 February 2017.
All research outputs
#2,903,202
of 12,818,194 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,593
of 10,431 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#67,263
of 262,850 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#108
of 181 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,818,194 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 77th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,431 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.4. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% 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 262,850 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 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 181 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.