↓ Skip to main content

Acceptability and willingness among men who have sex with men (MSM) to use a tablet-based HIV risk assessment in a clinical setting

Overview of attention for article published in SpringerPlus, December 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
41 Mendeley
Title
Acceptability and willingness among men who have sex with men (MSM) to use a tablet-based HIV risk assessment in a clinical setting
Published in
SpringerPlus, December 2014
DOI 10.1186/2193-1801-3-708
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jeb Jones, Rob Stephenson, Dawn K Smith, Lauren Toledo, Allison La Pointe, Jennifer Taussig, Patrick S Sullivan

Abstract

We developed an iPad-based application to administer an HIV risk assessment tool in a clinical setting. We conducted focus group discussions (FGDs) with gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men (MSM) to assess their opinions about using such a device to share risk behavior information in a clinical setting. Participants were asked about their current assessment of their risk or any risk reduction strategies that they discussed with their healthcare providers. Participants were then asked to provide feedback about the iPad-based risk assessment, their opinions about using it in a clinic setting, and suggestions on how the assessment could be improved. FGD participants were generally receptive to the idea of using an iPad-based risk assessment during healthcare visits. Based on the results of the FGDs, an iPad-based risk assessment is a promising method for identifying those patients at highest risk for HIV transmission.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 41 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 17%
Unspecified 5 12%
Student > Master 5 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 7%
Other 9 22%
Unknown 8 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 9 22%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 17%
Unspecified 5 12%
Social Sciences 5 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 5%
Other 3 7%
Unknown 10 24%
Attention Score in Context

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 23 December 2014.
All research outputs
#15,313,289
of 22,775,504 outputs
Outputs from SpringerPlus
#931
of 1,852 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#213,909
of 361,275 outputs
Outputs of similar age from SpringerPlus
#47
of 78 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,775,504 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,852 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% 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 361,275 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 78 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.