↓ Skip to main content

Promotion of couples’ voluntary HIV counseling and testing: a comparison of influence networks in Rwanda and Zambia

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
67 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
Promotion of couples’ voluntary HIV counseling and testing: a comparison of influence networks in Rwanda and Zambia
Published in
BMC Public Health, August 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12889-016-3424-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

April L. Kelley, Ashley K. Hagaman, Kristin M. Wall, Etienne Karita, William Kilembe, Roger Bayingana, Amanda Tichacek, Michele Kautzman, Susan A. Allen

Abstract

Many African adults do not know that partners in steady or cohabiting relationships can have different HIV test results. Despite WHO recommendations for couples' voluntary counseling and testing (CVCT), fewer than 10 % of couples have been jointly tested and counseled. We examine the roles and interactions of influential network leaders (INLs) and influential network agents (INAs) in promoting CVCT in Kigali, Rwanda and Lusaka, Zambia. INLs were identified in the faith-based, non-governmental, private, and health sectors. Each INL recruited and mentored several INAs who promoted CVCT. INLs and INAs were interviewed about demographic characteristics, promotional efforts, and working relationships. We also surveyed CVCT clients about sources of CVCT information. In Zambia, 53 INAs and 31 INLs were surveyed. In Rwanda, 33 INAs and 27 INLs were surveyed. Most (75 %-90 %) INAs believed that INL support was necessary for their promotional work. Zambian INLs reported being more engaged with their INAs than Rwandan INLs, with 58 % of Zambian INLs reporting that they gave a lot of support to their INAs versus 39 % in Rwanda. INAs in both Rwanda and Zambia reported promoting CVCT via group forums (77 %-97 %) and speaking to a community leader about CVCT (79 %-88 %) in the past month. More Rwandan INAs and INLs reported previous joint or individual HIV testing compared with their Zambian counterparts, of which more than half had not been tested. In Zambia and Rwanda, 1271 and 3895 CVCT clients were surveyed, respectively. Hearing about CVCT from INAs during one-on-one promotions was the most frequent source of information reported by clients in Zambia (71 %). In contrast, Rwandan couples who tested were more likely to have heard about CVCT from a previously tested couple (59 %). CVCT has long been endorsed for HIV prevention but few couples have been reached. Influential social networks can successfully promote evidence-based HIV prevention in Africa. Support from more senior INLs and group presentations leveraged INAs' one-on-one promotions. The INL/INA model was effective in promoting couples to seek joint HIV testing and counseling and may have broader application to other sub-Saharan African countries to sustainably increase CVCT uptake.

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 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 67 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 21%
Researcher 8 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 12%
Student > Bachelor 5 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 7%
Other 11 16%
Unknown 16 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 14 21%
Social Sciences 12 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 4%
Psychology 3 4%
Other 5 7%
Unknown 20 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 14 March 2017.
All research outputs
#12,902,380
of 22,882,389 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#8,917
of 14,924 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#188,095
of 364,241 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#226
of 385 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,882,389 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,924 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.9. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% 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 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 385 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.