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 |
Perspectives on the ethical concerns and justifications of the 2006 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention HIV testing: HIV screening policy changes
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Ethics, November 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1472-6939-14-46 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Michael J Waxman, Roland C Merchant, M Teresa Celada, Melissa A Clark |
| Abstract |
The 2006 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) revised recommendations for HIV testing in clinical settings contained seven specific changes to how health care facilities should provide HIV testing. These seven elements have been both supported and challenged in the lay and medical literature. Our first paper in BMC Medical Ethics presented an analysis of the three HIV testing procedural changes included in the recommendations. In this paper, we address the four remaining elements that concern HIV screening policy changes: (1) nontargeted HIV screening, (2) making HIV screening similar to screening for other treatable conditions, (3) increasing HIV screening without assured additional funding for linkage to care, and (4) making patients bear the costs of increased HIV screening in health care settings. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 30 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 6 | 20% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 7% |
| Lecturer > Senior Lecturer | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 5 | 17% |
| Unknown | 8 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 27% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 13% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 10% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 7% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 3 | 10% |
| Unknown | 8 | 27% |
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 December 2013.
All research outputs
#15,285,728
of 22,731,677 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#808
of 990 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#130,412
of 212,426 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#15
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,731,677 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 990 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% 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 212,426 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.