↓ Skip to main content

Trial and error: evaluating and refining a community model of HIV testing in Australia

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (58th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
102 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
Trial and error: evaluating and refining a community model of HIV testing in Australia
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, October 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12913-017-2635-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kathleen E. Ryan, Alisa Pedrana, David Leitinger, Anna L. Wilkinson, Peter Locke, Margaret E. Hellard, Mark Stoové

Abstract

The 2012 regulatory approval of HIV rapid point of care (RPOC) tests in Australia and a national strategic focus on HIV testing provided a catalyst for implementation of non-clinical HIV testing service models. PRONTO! opened in 2013 as a two-year trial delivering peer-led community-based HIV RPOC tests targeting gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men (GBM), with the aim of increasing HIV testing frequency. Initial data suggested this aim was not achieved and, as part of a broader service evaluation, we sought to explore client acceptability and barriers to testing at PRONTO! to refine the service model. We present descriptive and thematic analyses of data from two in-depth evaluation surveys and four focus groups with PRONTO! clients focused on service acceptability, client testing history, intentions to test and barriers to testing for HIV and other sexually transmitted infections (STIs). The three novel aspects of the PRONTO! model, testing environment, rapid-testing, peer-staff, were reported to be highly acceptable among survey and focus group participants. Focus group discussions revealed that the PRONTO! model reduced anxiety associated with HIV testing and created a comfortable environment conducive to discussing sexual risk and health. However, an absence of STI testing at PRONTO!, driven by restrictions on medical subsidies for STI testing and limited funds available at the service level created a barrier to HIV testing. An overwhelming majority of PRONTO! clients reported usually testing for STIs alongside HIV and most reported plans to seek STI testing after testing for HIV at PRONTO!. When deciding where, when and what to test for, clients reported balancing convenience and relative risk and consequences for each infection as guiding their decision-making. A community-based and peer-led HIV testing model reduced previously reported barriers to HIV testing, while introducing new barriers. The absence of STI testing at PRONTO! and the need to access multiple services for comprehensive sexual health screening, created a significant service engagement barrier for some clients. Understanding client motivations to access testing and ensuring novel service models meet client needs is crucial for developing acceptable sexual health services for high-risk populations.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 102 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 102 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 21 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 17%
Student > Master 11 11%
Researcher 8 8%
Other 7 7%
Other 14 14%
Unknown 24 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 21 21%
Medicine and Dentistry 14 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 11%
Social Sciences 9 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 6%
Other 11 11%
Unknown 30 29%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 January 2021.
All research outputs
#6,352,820
of 23,006,268 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#3,018
of 7,704 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#103,615
of 324,389 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#45
of 110 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,006,268 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,704 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% 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 324,389 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 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 110 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its contemporaries.