↓ Skip to main content

Behavioral interventions for improving dual-method contraceptive use

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (58th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
224 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
Behavioral interventions for improving dual-method contraceptive use
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2014
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010915.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Laureen M Lopez, Laurie L Stockton, Mario Chen, Markus J Steiner, Maria F Gallo, Lopez LM, Stockton LL, Chen M, Steiner MJ, Gallo MF

Abstract

Dual-method contraception refers to using condoms as well as another modern method of contraception. The latter (usually non-barrier) method is commonly hormonal (e.g., oral contraceptives) or a non-hormonal intrauterine device. Use of two methods can better prevent pregnancy and the transmission of HIV and other sexually transmitted infections (STIs) compared to single-method use. Unprotected sex increases risk for disease, disability, and mortality in many areas due to the prevalence and incidence of HIV/STI. Millions of women, especially in lower-resource areas, also have an unmet need for protection against unintended pregnancy.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 224 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 220 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 51 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 29 13%
Researcher 28 13%
Student > Bachelor 22 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 16 7%
Other 37 17%
Unknown 41 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 64 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 40 18%
Social Sciences 29 13%
Psychology 16 7%
Arts and Humanities 4 2%
Other 22 10%
Unknown 49 22%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 11 May 2014.
All research outputs
#8,200,338
of 15,345,472 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,533
of 11,160 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#78,359
of 192,610 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#155
of 204 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,345,472 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,160 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.0. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% 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 192,610 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 58% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 204 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.