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 |
Effectiveness of needle and syringe Programmes in people who inject drugs – An overview of systematic reviews
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Public Health, April 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12889-017-4210-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ricardo M Fernandes, Maria Cary, Gonçalo Duarte, Gonçalo Jesus, Joana Alarcão, Carla Torre, Suzete Costa, João Costa, António Vaz Carneiro |
| Abstract |
Needle and syringe programmes (NSP) are a critical component of harm reduction interventions among people who inject drugs (PWID). Our primary objective was to summarize the evidence on the effectiveness of NSP for PWID in reducing blood-borne infection transmission and injecting risk behaviours (IRB). We conducted an overview of systematic reviews that included PWID (excluding prisons and consumption rooms), addressed community-based NSP, and provided estimates of the effect regarding incidence/prevalence of Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV), Hepatitis C virus (HCV), Hepatitis B virus (HBV) and bacteremia/sepsis, and/or measures of IRB. Systematic literature searches were undertaken on relevant databases, including EMBASE, MEDLINE, and PsychINFO (up to May 2015). For each review we identified relevant studies and extracted data on methods, and findings, including risk of bias and quality of evidence assessed by review authors. We evaluated the risk of bias of each systematic review using the ROBIS tool. We categorized reviews by reported outcomes and use of meta-analysis; no additional statistical analysis was performed. We included thirteen systematic reviews with 133 relevant unique studies published between 1989 and 2012. Reported outcomes related to HIV (n = 9), HCV (n = 8) and IRB (n = 6). Methods used varied at all levels of design and conduct, with four reviews performing meta-analysis. Only two reviews were considered to have low risk of bias using the ROBIS tool, and most included studies were evaluated as having low methodological quality by review authors. We found that NSP was effective in reducing HIV transmission and IRB among PWID, while there were mixed results regarding a reduction of HCV infection. Full harm reduction interventions provided at structural level and in multi-component programmes, as well as high level of coverage, were more beneficial. The heterogeneity and the overall low quality of evidence highlights the need for future community-level studies of adequate design to support these results. The protocol of this systematic review was registered in Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO 2015: CRD42015026145 ). |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 11 | 50% |
| Djibouti | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 10 | 45% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 18 | 82% |
| Scientists | 3 | 14% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 5% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 326 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 326 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 68 | 21% |
| Researcher | 49 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 41 | 13% |
| Other | 21 | 6% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 17 | 5% |
| Other | 47 | 14% |
| Unknown | 83 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 62 | 19% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 57 | 17% |
| Social Sciences | 32 | 10% |
| Psychology | 20 | 6% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 11 | 3% |
| Other | 44 | 13% |
| Unknown | 100 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 67. 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 01 March 2024.
All research outputs
#652,979
of 25,713,737 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#646
of 17,781 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,431
of 325,510 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#14
of 213 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,713,737 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 17,781 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 done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 325,510 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 213 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.