↓ Skip to main content

Intention of physicians to implement guidelines for screening and treatment of latent tuberculosis infection in HIV-infected patients in The Netherlands: a mixed-method design

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
77 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
Intention of physicians to implement guidelines for screening and treatment of latent tuberculosis infection in HIV-infected patients in The Netherlands: a mixed-method design
Published in
BMC Public Health, September 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12889-016-3539-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kirsten Evenblij, Annelies Verbon, Frank van Leth

Abstract

All newly diagnosed HIV-infected patients in the Netherlands should be screened for latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) and offered preventive therapy if infected without evidence of active tuberculosis. This guideline, endorsed by the national professional body of HIV physicians is in line with international recommendations, and based on the increased risk of progression from LTBI to active tuberculosis in HIV-infected patients. The objective of the study is to assess the intention of HIV physicians to implement this national guideline. A mixed method design triangulating results from two surveys among all (n = 80) HIV physicians in The Netherlands and qualitative interviews among 11 Dutch HIV physicians performed in 2014. The majority of physicians used a risk-stratification approach based on individual a priori risk of tuberculosis to identify HIV-infected patients for LTBI screening, rather than screening all new HIV-infected patients. The intended and actual provision of preventive treatment was low, due to expressed doubts on the accuracy of diagnostic tools for LTBI. Interviewees reported that the guidelines did not match their clinical experience and lacked evidence for the recommendations. Screening for and treatment of LTBI was approached at a patient-level only. None of the interviewees referred to potential public health implications of the guidelines. Intended implementation of the national HIV-TB guidelines in the Netherlands is poor, due to a disconnect between clinical practice and evidence-based recommendations in the guideline. There is an urgent need to reconcile the views of HIV-physicians, public health experts, and guideline committee members, regarding the best strategy to address HIV-TB co-infection in the Netherlands.

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 77 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 77 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 19 25%
Student > Master 11 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 6%
Student > Bachelor 5 6%
Other 15 19%
Unknown 15 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 26 34%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 14%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 4%
Psychology 3 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Other 11 14%
Unknown 21 27%
Attention Score in Context

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 25 July 2017.
All research outputs
#15,470,944
of 22,990,068 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#11,428
of 14,980 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#216,074
of 337,962 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#308
of 383 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,990,068 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 14,980 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.9. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% 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 337,962 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 383 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.