↓ Skip to main content

The acceptability and feasibility of a brief psychosocial intervention to reduce blood-borne virus risk behaviours among people who inject drugs: a randomised control feasibility trial of a…

Overview of attention for article published in Harm Reduction Journal, March 2017
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 (85th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
22 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
2 Google+ users

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
142 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
The acceptability and feasibility of a brief psychosocial intervention to reduce blood-borne virus risk behaviours among people who inject drugs: a randomised control feasibility trial of a psychosocial intervention (the PROTECT study) versus treatment as usual
Published in
Harm Reduction Journal, March 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12954-017-0142-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gail Gilchrist, Davina Swan, April Shaw, Ada Keding, Sarah Towers, Noel Craine, Alison Munro, Elizabeth Hughes, Steve Parrott, John Strang, Avril Taylor, Judith Watson

Abstract

While opiate substitution therapy and injecting equipment provision (IEP) have reduced blood-borne viruses (BBV) among people who inject drugs (PWID), some PWID continue to share injecting equipment and acquire BBV. Psychosocial interventions that address risk behaviours could reduce BBV transmission among PWID. A pragmatic, two-armed randomised controlled, open feasibility study of PWID attending drug treatment or IEP in four UK regions. Ninety-nine PWID were randomly allocated to receive a three-session manualised psychosocial group intervention and BBV transmission information booklet plus treatment as usual (TAU) (n = 52) or information booklet plus TAU (n = 47). The intervention was developed from evidence-based literature, qualitative interviews with PWID, key stakeholder consultations, and expert opinion. Recruitment rates, retention in treatment, follow-up completion rates and health economic data completion measured feasibility. Fifty-six percent (99/176) of eligible PWID were recruited. More participants attended at least one intervention session in London (10/16; 63%) and North Wales (7/13; 54%) than in Glasgow (3/12; 25%) and York (0/11). Participants who attended no sessions (n = 32) compared to those attending at least one (n = 20) session were more likely to be homeless (56 vs 25%, p = 0.044), injected drugs for a greater number of days (median 25 vs 6.5, p = 0.019) and used a greater number of needles from an IEP in the last month (median 31 vs 20, p = 0.056). No adverse events were reported. 45.5% (45/99) were followed up 1 month post-intervention. Feedback forms confirmed that the intervention was acceptable to both intervention facilitators and participants who attended it. Follow-up attendance was associated with fewer days of injecting in the last month (median 14 vs 27, p = 0.030) and fewer injections of cocaine (13 vs 30%, p = 0.063). Analysis of the questionnaires identified several service use questionnaire categories that could be excluded from the assessment battery in a full-randomised controlled trial. Findings should be interpreted with caution due to small sample sizes. A future definitive RCT of the psychosocial intervention is not feasible. The complex needs of some PWID may have limited their engagement in the intervention. More flexible delivery methods may have greater reach. ISRCTN66453696.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 22 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 142 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 142 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 21 15%
Student > Bachelor 20 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 8%
Researcher 11 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 7%
Other 21 15%
Unknown 47 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 21 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 18 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 18 13%
Social Sciences 13 9%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 3%
Other 14 10%
Unknown 54 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 31 May 2017.
All research outputs
#2,180,722
of 22,961,203 outputs
Outputs from Harm Reduction Journal
#311
of 928 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#43,849
of 309,329 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Harm Reduction Journal
#3
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,961,203 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 928 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 29.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% 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 309,329 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 6 of them.