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 |
“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. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 | 2 | 22% |
| Kenya | 1 | 11% |
| Canada | 1 | 11% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 11% |
| Unknown | 4 | 44% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 8 | 89% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 11% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 132 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 131 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 26 | 20% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 19 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 19 | 14% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 10 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 5% |
| Other | 16 | 12% |
| Unknown | 36 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 24 | 18% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 24 | 18% |
| Psychology | 17 | 13% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 12 | 9% |
| Arts and Humanities | 4 | 3% |
| Other | 11 | 8% |
| Unknown | 40 | 30% |
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
#6,472,674
of 25,196,456 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#6,665
of 16,847 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#50,438
of 203,795 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#95
of 250 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,196,456 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 16,847 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 gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% 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 203,795 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 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 250 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 62% of its contemporaries.