↓ Skip to main content

House calls by community health workers and public health nurses to improve adherence to isoniazid monotherapy for latent tuberculosis infection: a retrospective study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, September 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 (82nd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
129 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
House calls by community health workers and public health nurses to improve adherence to isoniazid monotherapy for latent tuberculosis infection: a retrospective study
Published in
BMC Public Health, September 2013
DOI 10.1186/1471-2458-13-894
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alicia H Chang, Andrea Polesky, Gulshan Bhatia

Abstract

Patient adherence to isoniazid (INH) monotherapy for latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) has been suboptimal despite its proven efficacy. Various strategies have been studied to improve adherence, but all have been based at a clinic or treatment program. At the Santa Clara Valley Tuberculosis Clinic, it was our practice to refer a subset of high-risk LTBI patients to the Public Health Department for monthly follow-up at home instead of at the clinic. Our goal was to assess whether house calls by community health workers and public health nurses affected INH adherence or frequency of adverse effects.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 129 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 2%
Indonesia 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 124 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 24 19%
Researcher 20 16%
Student > Bachelor 11 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 8%
Other 8 6%
Other 24 19%
Unknown 32 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 41 32%
Nursing and Health Professions 20 16%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 4%
Social Sciences 5 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 2%
Other 14 11%
Unknown 41 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 18 October 2013.
All research outputs
#4,000,848
of 22,723,682 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#4,449
of 14,801 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#36,702
of 204,835 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#104
of 288 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,723,682 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,801 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% 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 204,835 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 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 288 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 63% of its contemporaries.