↓ Skip to main content

“A place at the table:” a qualitative analysis of community board members’ experiences with academic HIV/AIDS research

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
4 X users
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
54 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
“A place at the table:” a qualitative analysis of community board members’ experiences with academic HIV/AIDS research
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, July 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12874-016-0181-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stella Safo, Chinazo Cunningham, Alice Beckman, Lorlette Haughton, Joanna L. Starrels

Abstract

Community advisory boards (CAB) are proposed as one mechanism to carry out successful community based participatory research (CBPR), but the presence of CABs may be insufficient to optimize academic-community partnerships. We conducted semi-structured interviews with minority members of a CAB partnered with a HIV/AIDS research center and identified three themes. First, lack of trust in researchers included two subthemes: researchers' lacked respect for community-based organizations' (CBO's) interests and paid inadequate attention to building trust. Second, power imbalance included three subthemes: CAB members felt like inferior "token" members, felt that a lack of communication led to disempowerment, and held preconceived beliefs of researchers that led to perceived power imbalance. Third, CAB members suggested best practices, including using collaborations to build trust, actively allocating power, and sharing tangible research benefits with CBOs. Our findings indicate that CABs must be founded on trust and instilled with power to meet the tenets of CBPR.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 54 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Sierra Leone 1 2%
Unknown 53 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 14 26%
Student > Master 12 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 9%
Other 4 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 7%
Other 5 9%
Unknown 10 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 16 30%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 13%
Psychology 3 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 4%
Other 6 11%
Unknown 13 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 06 May 2021.
All research outputs
#3,026,874
of 25,109,675 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#459
of 2,237 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#51,996
of 363,217 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#9
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,109,675 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,237 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 363,217 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 38 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.