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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
High coverage needle/syringe programs for people who inject drugs in low and middle income countries: a systematic review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Public Health, January 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2458-13-53 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Don C Des Jarlais, Jonathan P Feelemyer, Shilpa N Modi, Abu Abdul-Quader, Holly Hagan |
| Abstract |
Persons who inject drugs (PWID) are at an elevated risk for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection. In many high-income countries, needle and syringe exchange programs (NSP) have been associated with reductions in blood-borne infections. However, we do not have a good understanding of the effectiveness of NSP in low/middle-income and transitional-economy countries. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 | 50% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 20% |
| Ireland | 1 | 10% |
| Spain | 1 | 10% |
| Indonesia | 1 | 10% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 9 | 90% |
| Scientists | 1 | 10% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 147 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Indonesia | 1 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Belgium | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 142 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 33 | 22% |
| Student > Master | 28 | 19% |
| Student > Bachelor | 16 | 11% |
| Other | 8 | 5% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 5% |
| Other | 24 | 16% |
| Unknown | 30 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 44 | 30% |
| Social Sciences | 21 | 14% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 10 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 7 | 5% |
| Psychology | 7 | 5% |
| Other | 19 | 13% |
| Unknown | 39 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 12 September 2017.
All research outputs
#2,418,334
of 25,307,332 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#2,829
of 16,967 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,046
of 298,361 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#34
of 270 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,307,332 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 16,967 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 298,361 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 270 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.