↓ Skip to main content

Harm reduction policy in Taiwan: toward a comprehensive understanding of its making and effects

Overview of attention for article published in Harm Reduction Journal, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (63rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
55 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
Harm reduction policy in Taiwan: toward a comprehensive understanding of its making and effects
Published in
Harm Reduction Journal, April 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12954-016-0101-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jia-shin Chen

Abstract

In response to the spread of HIV caused by needle sharing among injection drug users (IDUs), the Taiwan Centers for Disease Control implemented a pilot harm reduction program in 2005 that expanded nationwide in 2006. The policy led to a significant reduction in the number of HIV-positive cases among IDUs in 4 years. This article aims to provide a critical evaluation of this harm reduction policy in Taiwan. The research leading to this article included a thorough literature review and in-depth interviews with 31 active policy participants, including people working in hospitals, the academia, non-governmental organizations, community pharmacies, the legal system, and health authorities at both the central and local levels. The collected data were analyzed on the basis of situational analysis. The article examines the policy success by showing how this policy was assembled and by exposing the frictions and adjustments during its formation and implementation. Inter-departmental conflicts within or without the government and the efforts to coordinate them are addressed, and the transnational dimensions of this harm reduction policy are also discussed. The article then reflects on the effects of the policy and asks where the line should be drawn between what is harm reduction and what is not. This case illustration reveals the complexity of understanding an assembled health policy that involves multiple participants. The article intends to render an analytic account to enable a comparison with similar policies in other countries.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 55 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 11 20%
Researcher 8 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 9%
Student > Master 5 9%
Lecturer 4 7%
Other 8 15%
Unknown 14 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 25%
Social Sciences 10 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 16%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 4%
Other 5 9%
Unknown 13 24%
Attention Score in Context

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 13 June 2021.
All research outputs
#8,418,123
of 25,759,158 outputs
Outputs from Harm Reduction Journal
#807
of 1,141 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#111,127
of 315,563 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Harm Reduction Journal
#5
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,759,158 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 66th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,141 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 28.8. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% 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 315,563 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 63% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.