↓ Skip to main content

Theorizing the complexity of HIV disclosure in vulnerable populations: a grounded theory study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
106 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
Theorizing the complexity of HIV disclosure in vulnerable populations: a grounded theory study
Published in
BMC Public Health, January 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12889-018-5073-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Subash Thapa, Karin Hannes, Anne Buve, Shivani Bhattarai, Catharina Mathei

Abstract

HIV disclosure is an important step in delivering the right care to people. However, many people with an HIV positive status choose not to disclose. This considerably complicates the delivery of adequate health care. We conducted a grounded theory study to develop a theoretical model explaining how local contexts impact on HIV disclosure and what the mechanisms are that determine whether people choose to disclose or not. We conducted in-depth interviews among 23 people living with HIV, 8 health workers and 5 family and community members, and 1 community development worker in Achham, Nepal. Data were analysed using constant-comparative method, performing three levels of open, axial, and selective coding. Our theoretical model illustrates how two dominant systems to control HIV, namely a community self-coping and a public health system, independently or jointly, shape contexts, mechanisms and outcomes for HIV disclosure. This theoretical model can be used in understanding processes of HIV disclosure in a community where HIV is concentrated in vulnerable populations and is highly stigmatized, and in determining how public health approaches would lead to reduced stigma levels and increased HIV disclosure rates.

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 106 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 106 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 15 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 13%
Student > Master 14 13%
Researcher 7 7%
Student > Postgraduate 5 5%
Other 18 17%
Unknown 33 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 17 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 16 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 15%
Psychology 7 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 4%
Other 10 9%
Unknown 36 34%
Attention Score in Context

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 09 February 2018.
All research outputs
#7,487,474
of 23,018,998 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#7,881
of 14,994 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#153,609
of 441,339 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#173
of 243 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,018,998 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,994 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.0. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% 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 441,339 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 243 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.