↓ Skip to main content

High variability of HIV and HCV seroprevalence and risk behaviours among people who inject drugs: results from a cross-sectional study using respondent-driven sampling in eight German cities (2011–14)

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, September 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 (87th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (79th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
21 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
41 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
87 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
High variability of HIV and HCV seroprevalence and risk behaviours among people who inject drugs: results from a cross-sectional study using respondent-driven sampling in eight German cities (2011–14)
Published in
BMC Public Health, September 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12889-016-3545-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Benjamin Wenz, Stine Nielsen, Martyna Gassowski, Claudia Santos-Hövener, Wei Cai, R. Stefan Ross, Claus-Thomas Bock, Boris-Alexander Ratsch, Claudia Kücherer, Norbert Bannert, Viviane Bremer, Osamah Hamouda, Ulrich Marcus, Ruth Zimmermann, the DRUCK Study group

Abstract

People who inject drugs (PWID) are at increased risk of acquiring and transmitting HIV and Hepatitis C (HCV) due to sharing injection paraphernalia and unprotected sex. To generate seroprevalence data on HIV and HCV among PWID and related data on risk behaviour, a multicentre sero- and behavioural survey using respondent driven sampling (RDS) was conducted in eight German cities between 2011 and 2014. We also evaluated the feasibility and effectiveness of RDS for recruiting PWID in the study cities. Eligible for participation were people who had injected drugs within the last 12 months, were 16 years or older, and who consumed in one of the study cities. Participants were recruited, using low-threshold drop-in facilities as study sites. Initial seeds were selected to represent various sub-groups of people who inject drugs (PWID). Participants completed a face-to-face interview with a structured questionnaire about socio-demographics, sexual and injecting risk behaviours, as well as the utilisation of health services. Capillary blood samples were collected as dried blood spots and were anonymously tested for serological and molecular markers of HIV and HCV. The results are shown as range of proportions (min. and max. values (%)) in the respective study cities. For evaluation of the sampling method we applied criteria from the STROBE guidelines. Overall, 2,077 PWID were recruited. The range of age medians was 29-41 years, 18.5-35.3 % of participants were female, and 9.2-30.6 % were foreign born. Median time span since first injection were 10-18 years. Injecting during the last 30 days was reported by 76.0-88.4 % of participants. Sharing needle/syringes (last 30 days) ranged between 4.7 and 22.3 %, while sharing unsterile paraphernalia (spoon, filter, water, last 30 days) was reported by 33.0-43.8 %. A majority of participants (72.8-85.8 %) reported incarceration at least once, and 17.8-39.8 % had injected while incarcerated. Between 30.8 and 66.2 % were currently in opioid substitution therapy. Unweighted HIV seroprevalence ranged from 0-9.1 %, HCV from 42.3-75.0 %, and HCV-RNA from 23.1-54.0 %. The implementation of RDS as a recruiting method in cooperation with low-threshold drop in facilities was well accepted by both staff and PWID. We reached our targeted sample size in seven of eight cities. In the recruited sample of mostly current injectors with a long duration of injecting drug use, seroprevalence for HIV and HCV varied greatly between the city samples. HCV was endemic among participants in all city samples. Our results demonstrate the necessity of intensified prevention strategies for blood-borne infections among PWID in Germany.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 21 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 87 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 87 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 19 22%
Researcher 16 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 8%
Student > Bachelor 6 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 5%
Other 7 8%
Unknown 28 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 15%
Social Sciences 9 10%
Immunology and Microbiology 5 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 5%
Other 12 14%
Unknown 28 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 27 July 2020.
All research outputs
#2,534,239
of 25,019,915 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#2,966
of 16,689 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#42,780
of 343,720 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#78
of 382 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,019,915 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 16,689 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 343,720 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 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 382 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.