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 |
Cost-effectiveness of community vegetable gardens for people living with HIV in Zimbabwe
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation, April 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1478-7547-12-11 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Chloe Puett, Cécile Salpéteur, Elisabeth Lacroix, Simbarashe Dennis Zimunya, Anne-Dominique Israël, Myriam Aït-Aïssa |
| Abstract |
There is little evidence to date of the potential impact of vegetable gardens on people living with HIV (PLHIV), who often suffer from social and economic losses due to the disease. From 2008 through 2011, Action Contre la Faim France (ACF) implemented a project in Chipinge District, eastern Zimbabwe, providing low-input vegetable gardens (LIGs) to households of PLHIV. Program partners included Médecins du Monde, which provided medical support, and Zimbabwe's Agricultural Extension Service, which supported vegetable cultivation. A survey conducted at the end of the program found LIG participants to have higher Food Consumption Scores (FCS) and Household Dietary Diversity Scores (HDDS) relative to comparator households of PLHIV receiving other support programs. This study assessed the incremental cost-effectiveness of LIGs to improve FCS and HDDS of PLHIV compared to other support programs. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 Kingdom | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 112 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 111 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 22 | 20% |
| Researcher | 20 | 18% |
| Unspecified | 15 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 4% |
| Other | 17 | 15% |
| Unknown | 21 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 17 | 15% |
| Unspecified | 15 | 13% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 12% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 10 | 9% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 8 | 7% |
| Other | 24 | 21% |
| Unknown | 25 | 22% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 30 April 2014.
All research outputs
#20,656,820
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation
#421
of 533 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#178,055
of 241,759 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation
#3
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 533 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.9. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% 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 241,759 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.