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 |
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. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 | 18% |
| South Africa | 1 | 9% |
| Nepal | 1 | 9% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 9% |
| India | 1 | 9% |
| Unknown | 5 | 45% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 10 | 91% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 9% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 286 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 3 | 1% |
| Unknown | 283 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 63 | 22% |
| Researcher | 47 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 27 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 24 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 18 | 6% |
| Other | 40 | 14% |
| Unknown | 67 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 106 | 37% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 32 | 11% |
| Social Sciences | 18 | 6% |
| Psychology | 13 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 8 | 3% |
| Other | 30 | 10% |
| Unknown | 79 | 28% |
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 12 August 2021.
All research outputs
#1,165,719
of 25,457,297 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,412
of 11,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,570
of 209,069 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#48
of 284 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,297 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 11,499 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 40.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 209,069 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 284 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.