| Title |
eHealth to Enhance Treatment Adherence Among Youth Living with HIV
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Current HIV/AIDS Reports, June 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11904-018-0407-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Marta I. Mulawa, Sara LeGrand, Lisa B. Hightow-Weidman |
| Abstract |
Multiple reviews have examined eHealth/mHealth interventions to address treatment adherence, including those focusing on youth living with HIV (YLWH). This review synthesizes results of prior reviews and recent studies (last 5 years) to provide a path forward for future research, acknowledging both lessons learned and gaps to be addressed. Recent studies provide further evidence for the feasibility and acceptability of technology-based HIV interventions. Formative research of more comprehensive smartphone applications and pilot studies of computer-delivered interventions provide additional guidance on YLWH's preferences for intervention components and show promising preliminary efficacy for impacting treatment adherence. Expanding access to technology among YLWH, in the United States (US) and globally, supports the continued focus on eHealth/mHealth interventions as a means to reduce disparities in clinical outcomes. Future research should lend greater focus to implementation and scale-up of interventions through the use of adaptive treatment strategies that include costing analyses, measuring and maximizing engagement, fostering information sharing between researchers, and building upon sustainable platforms. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 5 | 45% |
| Chile | 1 | 9% |
| Uganda | 1 | 9% |
| Unknown | 4 | 36% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 10 | 91% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 9% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 150 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 150 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 23 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 23 | 15% |
| Researcher | 16 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 16 | 11% |
| Other | 6 | 4% |
| Other | 19 | 13% |
| Unknown | 47 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 26 | 17% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 21 | 14% |
| Social Sciences | 12 | 8% |
| Psychology | 11 | 7% |
| Computer Science | 10 | 7% |
| Other | 20 | 13% |
| Unknown | 50 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 July 2020.
All research outputs
#4,737,249
of 23,092,602 outputs
Outputs from Current HIV/AIDS Reports
#106
of 434 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#90,909
of 329,246 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current HIV/AIDS Reports
#2
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,092,602 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 434 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% 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 329,246 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 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.