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 |
A pill for the partner via the chlamydia patient? Results from a mixed method study among sexual health care providers in the Netherlands
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Infectious Diseases, May 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12879-018-3139-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Anita C. Nanhoe, Maartje Visser, Jurriaan J. Omlo, Anita J. C. M. Watzeels, Ingrid V. van den Broek, Hannelore M. Götz |
| Abstract |
Chlamydia prevalence in the Netherlands remains high despite targeted efforts. Effective Partner Notification (PN) and Partner Treatment (PT) can interrupt transmission and prevent re-infections. Patient Initiated Partner Treatment (PIPT) may strengthen chlamydia control. This study explores the current practice of PN and PT, and benefits of, and barriers and facilitators for PIPT among professionals in sexual health care in the Netherlands. A qualitative study was performed among GPs, GP-assistants (GPAs), physicians and nurses working at Sexual Health Clinics (SHC) and key-informants on ethnical diversity using topic lists in focus groups (N = 40) and semi-structured questionnaires in individual interviews (N = 9). Topics included current practices regarding PN and PT, attitude regarding PIPT, and perceived barriers and facilitators for PIPT. Interviews were taped, transcribed verbatim, and coded using ATLAS.ti. A quantitative online questionnaire on the same topics was sent to all physicians and nurses employed at Dutch SHC (complete response rate 26% (84/321)). The qualitative study showed that all professionals support the need for more attention to PN, and that they saw advantages in PIPT. Mentioned barriers included unwilling PN-behaviour, Dutch legislation, several medical considerations and inadequate skills of GPs. Also, concerns about limited knowledge of cultural sensitivity around PN and PT were raised. Mentioned facilitators of PIPT were reliable home based test-kits, phone-contact between professionals and notified partners, more consultation time for GPs or GPAs and additional training. The online questionnaire showed that SHC employees agreed that partners should be treated as soon as possible, but also that they were reluctant towards PIPT without counselling and testing. Professionals saw advantages in PIPT, but they also identified barriers hampering the potential introduction of PIPT. Improving PN and counselling skills with specific focus on cultural sensitivity is needed. PIPT could be considered for specific partners. PIPT in combination with home based testing and using e-healthcare should be further explored and developed. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | 1 | 33% |
| United States | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 2 | 67% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 67 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 11 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 10% |
| Researcher | 6 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 6 | 9% |
| Unknown | 26 | 39% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 11 | 16% |
| Social Sciences | 10 | 15% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 6% |
| Psychology | 4 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 9 | 13% |
| Unknown | 26 | 39% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 20 June 2019.
All research outputs
#6,512,239
of 23,083,773 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#2,052
of 7,746 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#115,002
of 331,249 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#39
of 137 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,083,773 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,746 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% 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 331,249 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 64% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 137 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.