↓ Skip to main content

Evaluation of the Tsima community mobilization intervention to improve engagement in HIV testing and care in South Africa: study protocol for a cluster randomized trial

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (52nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
261 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 the Tsima community mobilization intervention to improve engagement in HIV testing and care in South Africa: study protocol for a cluster randomized trial
Published in
Implementation Science, January 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13012-016-0541-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sheri A. Lippman, Audrey Pettifor, Dumisani Rebombo, Aimée Julien, Ryan G. Wagner, Mi-Suk Kang Dufour, Chodziwadziwa Whiteson Kabudula, Torsten B. Neilands, Rhian Twine, Ann Gottert, F. Xavier Gómez-Olivé, Stephen M. Tollman, Ian Sanne, Dean Peacock, Kathleen Kahn

Abstract

HIV transmission can be decreased substantially by reducing the burden of undiagnosed HIV infection and expanding early and consistent use of antiretroviral therapy (ART). Treatment as prevention (TasP) has been proposed as key to ending the HIV epidemic. To activate TasP in high prevalence countries, like South Africa, communities must be motivated to know their status, engage in care, and remain in care. Community mobilization (CM) has the potential to significantly increase uptake testing, linkage to and retention in care by addressing the primary social barriers to engagement with HIV care-including poor understanding of HIV care; fear and stigma associated with infection, clinic attendance and disclosure; lack of social support; and gender norms that deter men from accessing care. Using a cluster randomized trial design, we are implementing a 3-year-theory-based CM intervention and comparing gains in HIV testing, linkage, and retention in care among individuals residing in 8 intervention communities to that of individuals residing in 7 control communities. Eligible communities include 15 villages within a health and demographic surveillance site (HDSS) in rural Mpumalanga, South Africa, that were not exposed to previous CM efforts. CM activities conducted in the 8 intervention villages map onto six mobilization domains that comprise the key components for community mobilization around HIV prevention. To evaluate the intervention, we will link a clinic-based electronic clinical tracking system in all area clinics to the HDSS longitudinal census data, thus creating an open, population-based cohort with over 30,000 18-49-year-old residents. We will estimate the marginal effect of the intervention on individual outcomes using generalized estimating equations. In addition, we will evaluate CM processes by conducting baseline and endline surveys among a random sample of 1200 community residents at each time point to monitor intervention exposure and community level change using validated measures of CM. Given the known importance of community social factors with regard to uptake of testing and HIV care, and the lack of rigorously evaluated community-level interventions effective in improving testing uptake, linkage and retention, the proposed study will yield much needed data to understand the potential of CM to improve the prevention and care cascade. Further, our work in developing a CM framework and domain measures will permit validation of a CM conceptual framework and process, which should prove valuable for community programming in Africa. NCT02197793 Registered July 21, 2014.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 261 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 260 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 43 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 37 14%
Researcher 35 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 19 7%
Student > Bachelor 16 6%
Other 35 13%
Unknown 76 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 56 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 41 16%
Social Sciences 28 11%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 7 3%
Immunology and Microbiology 6 2%
Other 31 12%
Unknown 92 35%
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 February 2017.
All research outputs
#12,813,157
of 22,940,083 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#1,310
of 1,722 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#195,094
of 418,156 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#31
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,940,083 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 1,722 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.7. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% 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 418,156 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 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 39 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.