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 |
Needle acquisition patterns, network risk and social capital among rural PWID in Puerto Rico
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Harm Reduction Journal, October 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12954-017-0195-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ian Duncan, Patrick Habecker, Roberto Abadie, Ric Curtis, Bilal Khan, Kirk Dombrowski |
| Abstract |
People who inject drugs (PWID) take on significant risks of contracting blood-borne infection, including injecting with a large number of partners and acquiring needles from unsafe sources. When combined, risk of infection can be magnified. Using a sample of PWID in rural Puerto Rico, we model the relationship between a subject's number of injection partners and the likelihood of having used an unsafe source of injection syringes. Data collection with 315 current injectors identified six sources of needles. Of the six possible sources, only acquisition from a seller (paid or free), or using syringes found on the street, was significantly related to number of partners. These results suggest that sources of syringes do serve to multiply risk of infection caused by multi-partner injection concurrency. They also suggest that prior research on distinct forms of social capital among PWID may need to be rethought. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 | 5 | 63% |
| Bulgaria | 1 | 13% |
| Unknown | 2 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 8 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 67 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unspecified | 33 | 49% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 7% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 7% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 5 | 7% |
| Unknown | 11 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unspecified | 33 | 49% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 8 | 12% |
| Psychology | 4 | 6% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 4% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 3 | 4% |
| Unknown | 13 | 19% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 13 November 2017.
All research outputs
#7,169,303
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from Harm Reduction Journal
#661
of 971 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#114,566
of 328,353 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Harm Reduction Journal
#13
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 971 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 28.7. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% 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 328,353 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.