↓ Skip to main content

The HIV self-testing debate: where do we stand?

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, January 2018
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 (82nd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (59th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
84 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 HIV self-testing debate: where do we stand?
Published in
BMC Public Health, January 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12914-018-0146-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marilou Gagnon, Martin French, Yamilee Hébert

Abstract

Emphasis on HIV testing as a gateway to prevention, treatment and care has grown tremendously over the past decade. In turn, this emphasis on testing has created a demand for new policies, programs, and technologies that can potentially increase access to and uptake of HIV testing. HIV self-testing (HST) technologies have gained important momentum following the approval of the over-the-counter self-tests in the United States, the UK, and France. While the renewed interest in HST has given rise to a number of high quality reviews of empirical studies conducted on this topic, we have yet to find an article that captures the extent of the debate on HST. A critical review of the literature on HST was conducted and organized into three categories based on the focus of the article: 1) Empirical research, 2) Arguments, and 3) Context. We focused exclusively on the second category which included ethical analyses, policy analyses, editorials, opinion pieces, commentaries, letters to the editor and so forth. 10 lines of argument on HST were identified in the literature: 1) Individual - Public Health, 2) Strengths - Limits, 3) Benefits - Harms, 4) Screening - Testing, 5) Target - Market, 6) Health Care - Industry, 7) Regulation - Restriction, 8) Resource-Rich Settings - Resource-Limited Settings, 9) Ethical - Unethical, and 10) Exceptionalism - Normalization. Each line of argument is presented and discussed in the paper. We conclude by providing examples of critical questions that should be raised in order to take the debate to another level and generate new ways of thinking about HST.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 84 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 84 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 14%
Researcher 11 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 13%
Student > Bachelor 7 8%
Other 6 7%
Other 11 13%
Unknown 26 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 10%
Social Sciences 8 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 7%
Psychology 5 6%
Other 13 15%
Unknown 30 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 03 December 2018.
All research outputs
#3,698,342
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#4,539
of 17,517 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#79,617
of 451,277 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#103
of 256 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 17,517 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% 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 451,277 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 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 256 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 59% of its contemporaries.