↓ Skip to main content

The HepTestContest: a global innovation contest to identify approaches to hepatitis B and C testing

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Infectious Diseases, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
11 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
176 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
The HepTestContest: a global innovation contest to identify approaches to hepatitis B and C testing
Published in
BMC Infectious Diseases, November 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12879-017-2771-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Joseph D. Tucker, Kathrine Meyers, John Best, Karyn Kaplan, Razia Pendse, Kevin A. Fenton, Isabelle Andrieux-Meyer, Carmen Figueroa, Pedro Goicochea, Charles Gore, Azumi Ishizaki, Giten Khwairakpam, Veronica Miller, Antons Mozalevskis, Michael Ninburg, Ponsiano Ocama, Rosanna Peeling, Nick Walsh, Massimo G. Colombo, Philippa Easterbrook

Abstract

Innovation contests are a novel approach to elicit good ideas and innovative practices in various areas of public health. There remains limited published literature on approaches to deliver hepatitis testing. The purpose of this innovation contest was to identify examples of different hepatitis B and C approaches to support countries in their scale-up of hepatitis testing and to supplement development of formal recommendations on service delivery in the 2017 World Health Organization hepatitis B and C testing guidelines. This contest involved four steps: 1) establishment of a multisectoral steering committee to coordinate a call for contest entries; 2) dissemination of the call for entries through diverse media (Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, email listservs, academic journals); 3) independent ranking of submissions by a panel of judges according to pre-specified criteria (clarity of testing model, innovation, effectiveness, next steps) using a 1-10 scale; 4) recognition of highly ranked entries through presentation at international conferences, commendation certificate, and inclusion as a case study in the WHO 2017 testing guidelines. The innovation contest received 64 entries from 27 countries and took a total of 4 months to complete. Sixteen entries were directly included in the WHO testing guidelines. The entries covered testing in different populations, including primary care patients (n = 5), people who inject drugs (PWID) (n = 4), pregnant women (n = 4), general populations (n = 4), high-risk groups (n = 3), relatives of people living with hepatitis B and C (n = 2), migrants (n = 2), incarcerated individuals (n = 2), workers (n = 2), and emergency department patients (n = 2). A variety of different testing delivery approaches were employed, including integrated HIV-hepatitis testing (n = 12); integrated testing with harm reduction and addiction services (n = 9); use of electronic medical records to support targeted testing (n = 8); decentralization (n = 8); and task shifting (n = 7). The global innovation contest identified a range of local hepatitis testing approaches that can be used to inform the development of testing strategies in different settings and populations. Further implementation and evaluation of different testing approaches is needed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 X users 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 176 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 176 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 25 14%
Student > Bachelor 23 13%
Student > Master 21 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 8%
Student > Postgraduate 9 5%
Other 24 14%
Unknown 60 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 39 22%
Social Sciences 18 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 6%
Psychology 8 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 4%
Other 28 16%
Unknown 66 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 19 April 2022.
All research outputs
#2,271,314
of 25,292,378 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#647
of 8,527 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#43,377
of 336,485 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#11
of 135 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,292,378 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,527 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 336,485 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 135 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 92% of its contemporaries.