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 |
Using concept mapping to explore why patients become lost to follow up from an antiretroviral therapy program in the Zomba District of Malawi
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Health Services Research, June 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1472-6963-13-210 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Beth Rachlis, Farah Ahmad, Monique van Lettow, Adamson S Muula, Medson Semba, Donald C Cole |
| Abstract |
Retention in antiretroviral therapy (ART) programmes remains a challenge in many settings including Malawi, in part due to high numbers of losses to follow-up. Concept Mapping (CM), a mix-method participatory approach, was used to explore why patients on ART are lost to follow-up (LTFU) by identifying: 1) factors that influence patient losses to follow-up and 2) barriers to effective and efficient tracing in Zomba, Malawi. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 117 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 2% |
| Switzerland | 2 | 2% |
| Bangladesh | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Malawi | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 110 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 24 | 21% |
| Student > Master | 24 | 21% |
| Other | 10 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 6% |
| Other | 23 | 20% |
| Unknown | 19 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 38 | 32% |
| Social Sciences | 21 | 18% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 8 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 7 | 6% |
| Psychology | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 18 | 15% |
| Unknown | 22 | 19% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 04 July 2013.
All research outputs
#18,340,605
of 22,712,476 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#6,439
of 7,595 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#148,157
of 197,310 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#105
of 120 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,712,476 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,595 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% 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 197,310 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 120 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.