↓ Skip to main content

Systems analysis and improvement to optimize pMTCT (SAIA): a cluster randomized trial

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, May 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
43 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
231 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
Systems analysis and improvement to optimize pMTCT (SAIA): a cluster randomized trial
Published in
Implementation Science, May 2014
DOI 10.1186/1748-5908-9-55
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kenneth Sherr, Sarah Gimbel, Alison Rustagi, Ruth Nduati, Fatima Cuembelo, Carey Farquhar, Judith Wasserheit, Stephen Gloyd

Abstract

Despite significant increases in global health investment and the availability of low-cost, efficacious interventions to prevent mother-to-child HIV transmission (pMTCT) in low- and middle-income countries with high HIV burden, the translation of scientific advances into effective delivery strategies has been slow, uneven and incomplete. As a result, pediatric HIV infection remains largely uncontrolled. A five-step, facility-level systems analysis and improvement intervention (SAIA) was designed to maximize effectiveness of pMTCT service provision by improving understanding of inefficiencies (step one: cascade analysis), guiding identification and prioritization of low-cost workflow modifications (step two: value stream mapping), and iteratively testing and redesigning these modifications (steps three through five). This protocol describes the SAIA intervention and methods to evaluate the intervention's impact on reducing drop-offs along the pMTCT cascade.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 231 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Ethiopia 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Nigeria 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 224 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 46 20%
Researcher 38 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 34 15%
Student > Postgraduate 16 7%
Other 10 4%
Other 43 19%
Unknown 44 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 76 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 24 10%
Social Sciences 23 10%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 9 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 3%
Other 42 18%
Unknown 49 21%

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 12 May 2014.
All research outputs
#15,300,431
of 22,755,127 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#1,556
of 1,721 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#133,937
of 227,621 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#45
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,755,127 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 1,721 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.7. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% 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 227,621 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 45 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.