↓ Skip to main content

Study design and the estimation of the size of key populations at risk of HIV: lessons from Viet Nam

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
43 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
Study design and the estimation of the size of key populations at risk of HIV: lessons from Viet Nam
Published in
BMC Public Health, January 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12914-018-0141-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ali Safarnejad, Wim Groot, Milena Pavlova

Abstract

Estimation of the size of populations at risk of HIV is a key activity in the surveillance of the HIV epidemic. The existing framework for considering future research needs may provide decision-makers with a basis for a fair process of deciding on the methods of the estimation of the size of key populations at risk of HIV. This study explores the extent to which stakeholders involved with population size estimation agree with this framework, and thus, the study updates the framework. We conducted 16 in-depth interviews with key informants from city and provincial governments, NGOs, research institutes, and the community of people at risk of HIV. Transcripts were analyzed and reviewed for significant statements pertaining to criteria. Variations and agreement around criteria were analyzed, and emerging criteria were validated against the existing framework. Eleven themes emerged which are relevant to the estimation of the size of populations at risk of HIV in Viet Nam. Findings on missing criteria, inclusive participation, community perspectives and conflicting weight and direction of criteria provide insights for an improved framework for the prioritization of population size estimation methods. The findings suggest that the exclusion of community members from decision-making on population size estimation methods in Viet Nam may affect the validity, use, and efficiency of the evidence generated. However, a wider group of decision-makers, including community members among others, may introduce diverse definitions, weight and direction of criteria. Although findings here may not apply to every country with a transitioning economy or to every emerging epidemic, the principles of fair decision-making, value of community participation in decision-making and the expected challenges faced, merit consideration in every situation.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 43 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 14%
Student > Master 5 12%
Student > Bachelor 4 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 7%
Other 7 16%
Unknown 11 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 19%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 7%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 7%
Engineering 3 7%
Other 9 21%
Unknown 14 33%
Attention Score in Context

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 01 February 2018.
All research outputs
#6,600,606
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#7,062
of 17,517 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#123,367
of 449,219 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#165
of 274 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 17,517 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% 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 449,219 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 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 274 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.