↓ Skip to main content

Predictors of Chlamydia Trachomatis testing: perceived norms, susceptibility, changes in partner status, and underestimation of own risk

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
44 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
Predictors of Chlamydia Trachomatis testing: perceived norms, susceptibility, changes in partner status, and underestimation of own risk
Published in
BMC Public Health, January 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12889-016-2689-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gill A. ten Hoor, Robert A. C. Ruiter, Jan E. A. M. van Bergen, Christian J. P. A. Hoebe, Nicole H. T. M. Dukers-Muijrers, Gerjo Kok

Abstract

It is hard to convince people to participate in chlamydia screening programs outside the clinical setting. In two earlier studies (BMC Public Health. 2013;13:1091; J Med Internet Res. 2014;16(1):e24), we identified explicit and implicit determinants of chlamydia screening behavior and attempted, unsuccessfully, to improve participation rates by optimizing the recruitment letter. In the present study, we examined the links between a number of social-cognitive determinants (e.g., stereotypical beliefs about a person with chlamydia, intentions, changes in partner status), and self-reported chlamydia testing behavior six months after the initial study. The present study is a follow-up to our first study (T0). We assessed self-reported testing behavior 6 months after the first measure by means of an online questionnaire (T1; N = 269). Furthermore, at T1, we measured the social-cognitive determinants in more detail, and explored the influence of stereotypical beliefs and any changes in partner status during this six month period. In total, 25 (9.1 %) of the participants tested for chlamydia at some point during the six months between baseline (T0) and follow up (T1). Testing behavior was influenced by testing intentions in combination with changes in risk behavior. The higher the participants' own numbers of partners ever, the higher they estimated the number of partners of the stereotypical person with chlamydia. Testing intentions were most strongly predicted by perceived norms and susceptibility, and having had multiple partners in the last 6 months (R(2) = .41). The most relevant determinants for testing intentions and behavior were susceptibility, subjective norms and changes in partner status. We found a systematic tendency for individuals to underestimate their own risk, especially the risk of inconsistent condom use. Future research should focus on more promising alternatives to population-based interventions, such as online interventions, screening in primary care, the rescreening of positives, and clinic-based interventions. This future research should also focus on making testing easier and reducing barriers to testing, as well as using social and sexual networks in order to reach more people.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 44 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 18%
Student > Bachelor 7 16%
Researcher 5 11%
Student > Master 5 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 7%
Other 7 16%
Unknown 9 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 20%
Social Sciences 6 14%
Psychology 4 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 5%
Other 6 14%
Unknown 13 30%

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 26 January 2016.
All research outputs
#5,026,764
of 7,047,715 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#5,209
of 6,373 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#199,270
of 316,540 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#197
of 246 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 7,047,715 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,373 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.1. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% 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 316,540 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 246 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.