↓ Skip to main content

Informing the design of a national screening and treatment programme for chronic viral hepatitis in primary care: qualitative study of at-risk immigrant communities and healthcare professionals

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, March 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
159 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
33 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
190 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
Informing the design of a national screening and treatment programme for chronic viral hepatitis in primary care: qualitative study of at-risk immigrant communities and healthcare professionals
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, March 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12913-015-0746-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lorna Sweeney, John A Owiti, Andrew Beharry, Kamaldeep Bhui, Jessica Gomes, Graham R Foster, Trisha Greenhalgh

Abstract

Effective strategies are needed to provide screening and treatment for hepatitis B and C to immigrant groups in the UK at high risk of chronic infection. This study aimed to build an understanding of the knowledge, beliefs and attitudes towards these conditions and their management in a range of high-risk minority ethnic communities and health professionals, in order to inform the design of a screening and treatment programme in primary care. Qualitative data collection consisted of three sequential phases- (i) semi-structured interviews with key informants (n = 17), (ii) focus groups with people from Chinese, Pakistani, Roma, Somali, and French- and English-speaking African communities (n = 95), and (iii) semi-structured interviews with general practitioners (n = 6). Datasets from each phase were analysed using the Framework method. Key informants and general practitioners perceived that there was limited knowledge and understanding about hepatitis B and C within high-risk immigrant communities, and that chronic viral hepatitis did not typically feature in community discourses about serious illness. Many focus group participants were confused about the differences between types of viral hepatitis, held misconceptions regarding transmission, and were unaware of the asymptomatic nature of chronic infection. Most welcomed the idea of a screening programme, but key informants and focus group participants also identified numerous practical barriers to engagement with primary care-based screening and treatment; including language and communication difficulties, limited time (due to long working hours), and (for some) low levels of trust and confidence in general practice-based care. General practitioners expressed concerns about the workload implications and sustainability of screening and treating immigrant patients for chronic viral hepatitis in primary care. Strategies to reduce the burden of chronic viral hepatitis in immigrant communities will need to consider how levels of understanding about hepatitis B and C within these communities, and barriers to accessing healthcare, may affect capacity to engage with screening and treatment. Services may need to work with community groups and language support services to provide information and wider encouragement for screening. Primary care services will need ongoing consultation regarding their support needs to deliver hepatitis screening and treatment programmes.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 159 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 190 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 190 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 35 18%
Researcher 29 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 8%
Student > Bachelor 13 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 5%
Other 32 17%
Unknown 56 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 48 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 21 11%
Social Sciences 19 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 7 4%
Other 23 12%
Unknown 65 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 105. 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 06 February 2021.
All research outputs
#412,042
of 25,815,269 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#66
of 8,779 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,712
of 277,590 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#2
of 97 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,815,269 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,779 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 277,590 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 97 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 97% of its contemporaries.