↓ Skip to main content

Ultrasound-guided phlebotomy in primary care for people who inject drugs

Overview of attention for article published in Harm Reduction Journal, March 2023
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (51st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
reddit
1 Redditor

Readers on

mendeley
13 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
Ultrasound-guided phlebotomy in primary care for people who inject drugs
Published in
Harm Reduction Journal, March 2023
DOI 10.1186/s12954-023-00762-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michael Huyck, Stockton Mayer, Sarah Messmer, Charles Yingling, Shirley Stephenson

Abstract

Persons who inject drugs (PWID) commonly experience venous degradation as a complication of prolonged injection, which makes routine phlebotomy difficult. Clients may decline care due to the perceived lack of skilled phlebotomy services, and this contributes to significant delays in infectious disease screening and treatment. In this study, we investigated ultrasound-guided phlebotomy in clients with difficult venous access receiving care at two low-threshold buprenorphine clinics. Our objectives were to increase the accuracy of vascular access, expedite infectious disease treatment for hepatitis C virus (HCV) and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), and increase client satisfaction with phlebotomy services. PWID who declined routine phlebotomy at two clinic sites were offered ultrasound-guided vascular access by a trained clinician. Participants completed a survey to collect data regarding acceptability of the intervention. Throughout a 14-month period, 17 participants were enrolled. Of the total 30 procedures, 41.2% of clients returned for more than one phlebotomy visit, and 88.2% of clients achieved vascular access within 1 attempt. Of participating clients, 52.9% described themselves as having difficult venous access and at conclusion of the study, 58.8% expressed more willingness to have phlebotomy performed with an ultrasound device. Offering ultrasound-guided phlebotomy for PWID with difficult venous access resulted in decreased access attempts, increased patient satisfaction, and expedited screening and treatment for HIV and HCV point-of-care ultrasound technology is an effective approach to improving care for persons who inject drugs.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 13 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 2 15%
Unspecified 1 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 8%
Lecturer 1 8%
Unknown 8 62%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 3 23%
Unspecified 1 8%
Unknown 9 69%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 09 May 2023.
All research outputs
#15,105,756
of 24,754,968 outputs
Outputs from Harm Reduction Journal
#862
of 1,062 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#191,201
of 407,560 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Harm Reduction Journal
#37
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,754,968 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,062 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 28.8. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% 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 407,560 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 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 45 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.