↓ Skip to main content

Evaluation of a demand-creation intervention for couples’ HIV testing services among married or cohabiting individuals in Rakai, Uganda: a cluster-randomized intervention trial

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Infectious Diseases, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
104 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
Evaluation of a demand-creation intervention for couples’ HIV testing services among married or cohabiting individuals in Rakai, Uganda: a cluster-randomized intervention trial
Published in
BMC Infectious Diseases, August 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12879-016-1720-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Joseph K. B. Matovu, Jim Todd, Rhoda K. Wanyenze, Robert Kairania, David Serwadda, Fred Wabwire-Mangen

Abstract

Uptake of couples' HIV counseling and testing (couples' HCT) services remains largely low in most settings. We report the effect of a demand-creation intervention trial on couples' HCT uptake among married or cohabiting individuals who had never received couples' HCT. This was a cluster-randomized intervention trial implemented in three study regions with differing HIV prevalence levels (range: 9-43 %) in Rakai district, southwestern Uganda, between February and September 2014. We randomly assigned six clusters (1:1) to receive the intervention or serve as the comparison arm using computer-generated random numbers. In the intervention clusters, individuals attended small group, couple and male-focused interactive sessions, reinforced with testimonies from 'expert couples', and received invitation coupons to test together with their partners at designated health facilities. In the comparison clusters, participants attended general adult health education sessions but received no invitation coupons. The primary outcome was couples' HCT uptake, measured 12 months post-baseline. Baseline data were collected between November 2013 and February 2014 while follow-up data were collected between March and April 2015. We conducted intention-to-treat analysis using a mixed effects Poisson regression model to assess for differences in couples' HCT uptake between the intervention and comparison clusters. Data analysis was conducted using STATA statistical software, version 14.1. Of 2135 married or cohabiting individuals interviewed at baseline, 42 % (n = 846) had ever received couples' HCT. Of those who had never received couples' HCT (n = 1,174), 697 were interviewed in the intervention clusters while 477 were interviewed in the comparison clusters. 73.6 % (n = 513) of those interviewed in the intervention and 82.6 % (n = 394) of those interviewed in the comparison cluster were interviewed at follow-up. Of those interviewed, 72.3 % (n = 371) in the intervention and 65.2 % (n = 257) in the comparison clusters received HCT. Couples' HCT uptake was higher in the intervention than in the comparison clusters (20.3 % versus 13.7 %; adjusted prevalence ratio (aPR) = 1.43, 95 % CI: 1.02, 2.01, P = 0.04). Our findings show that a small group, couple and male-focused, demand-creation intervention reinforced with testimonies from 'expert couples', improved uptake of couples' HCT in this rural setting. ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02492061 . Date of registration: June 14, 2015.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 104 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 104 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 18 17%
Researcher 13 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 9%
Student > Postgraduate 5 5%
Other 13 13%
Unknown 34 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 19 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 18 17%
Social Sciences 12 12%
Psychology 3 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 2%
Other 10 10%
Unknown 40 38%
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 05 September 2016.
All research outputs
#17,812,370
of 22,882,389 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#5,126
of 7,690 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#266,805
of 364,241 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#108
of 169 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,882,389 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,690 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% 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 364,241 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 169 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.