↓ Skip to main content

Decentralising HIV treatment in lower- and middle-income countries

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
2 blogs
policy
1 policy source
twitter
11 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
101 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
187 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
Decentralising HIV treatment in lower- and middle-income countries
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009987.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tamara Kredo, Nathan Ford, Folasade B Adeniyi, Paul Garner

Abstract

Policy makers, health staff and communities recognise that health services in lower- and middle-income countries need to improve people's access to HIV treatment and retention to treatment programmes. One strategy is to move antiretroviral delivery from hospitals to more peripheral health facilities or even beyond health facilities. This could increase the number of people with access to care, improve health outcomes, and enhance retention in treatment programmes. On the other hand, providing care at less sophisticated levels in the health service or at community-level may decrease quality of care and result in worse health outcomes. To address these uncertainties, we summarised the research studies examining the risks and benefits of decentralising antiretroviral therapy service delivery.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 187 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 2%
Unknown 184 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 51 27%
Researcher 32 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 11%
Student > Bachelor 16 9%
Student > Postgraduate 15 8%
Other 32 17%
Unknown 21 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 83 44%
Nursing and Health Professions 26 14%
Social Sciences 15 8%
Psychology 10 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 4%
Other 18 10%
Unknown 28 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 34. 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 31 January 2019.
All research outputs
#637,372
of 15,835,002 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,712
of 11,300 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,922
of 158,063 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#13
of 150 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,835,002 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,300 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 158,063 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 150 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.