↓ Skip to main content

“If It’s Not Working, Why Would They Be Testing It?”: mental models of HIV vaccine trials and preventive misconception among men who have sex with men in India

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, August 2013
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 (80th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
103 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
“If It’s Not Working, Why Would They Be Testing It?”: mental models of HIV vaccine trials and preventive misconception among men who have sex with men in India
Published in
BMC Public Health, August 2013
DOI 10.1186/1471-2458-13-731
Pubmed ID
Authors

Venkatesan Chakrapani, Peter A Newman, Neeti Singhal, Ruban Nelson, Murali Shunmugam

Abstract

Informed consent based on comprehension of potential risks and benefits is fundamental to the ethical conduct of clinical research. We explored mental models of candidate HIV vaccines and clinical trials that may impact on the feasibility and ethics of biomedical HIV prevention trials among men who have sex with men (MSM) in India.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 103 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 102 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 22 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 18%
Student > Master 16 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 10%
Student > Bachelor 5 5%
Other 14 14%
Unknown 17 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 21 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 20 19%
Psychology 15 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 12%
Arts and Humanities 4 4%
Other 10 10%
Unknown 21 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 25 August 2013.
All research outputs
#973,034
of 6,230,238 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#1,578
of 6,107 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,323
of 100,558 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#46
of 167 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 6,230,238 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,107 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% 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 100,558 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 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 167 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.