↓ Skip to main content

Identification of hepatitis B and C screening and patient management guidelines and availability of training for chronic viral hepatitis among health professionals in six European countries: results…

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Infectious Diseases, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (55th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
53 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
Identification of hepatitis B and C screening and patient management guidelines and availability of training for chronic viral hepatitis among health professionals in six European countries: results of a semi-quantitative survey
Published in
BMC Infectious Diseases, August 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12879-015-1104-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Angela Bechini, Abby Falla, Amena Ahmad, Irene Veldhuijzen, Sara Boccalini, Barbara Porchia, Miriam Levi

Abstract

As part of the EU funded project "HEPscreen", the aim of this study is to identify hepatitis B and C screening and patient management guidelines, to assess the awareness of these among health professionals (HPs) and to explore the availability of hepatitis B/C training programmes for HPs in Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, the UK, Spain and Hungary. A comprehensive literature search through the main scientific databases was performed to retrieve guidelines, following which an online survey was developed and sent to HPs in six areas of health care, including public health, to verify whether HPs are aware of these guidelines, to retrieve additional guidelines and to find out whether specific professional training is available. Twelve national guidelines were identified through the literature search. Of the 268 respondents, 80 % were aware of hepatitis B guidelines and 73 % were aware of hepatitis C guidelines in their country. The national guidelines identified through the literature search were mentioned by 1/3 of HPs in the UK and Germany, 13 % of HPs in the Netherlands, 14 % in Italy and 4 % in Spain. An additional 41 hepatitis B/C related guidance documents were retrieved through the online survey: 15 in the UK, seven in Hungary, six in Italy, five in the Netherlands, four in Germany and four in Spain. Availability of training programmes to improve skills and knowledge in viral hepatitis was most often reported in the Netherlands, with 82 % indicating availability and just 10 % indicating no availability, and least commonly in Italy, with 42 % indicating yes but 40 % indicating no. Availability was also reported by the majority in the UK, Hungary and Spain, while in Germany the majority selected unsure. Results suggest that the scientific databases are not the most important information source of best clinical practice for many HPs. Implementation of best practices requires that guidelines are specifically designed and actively promoted among those who are to follow them. Training can disseminate these best practice recommendations and raise awareness of guidelines. It is therefore encouraging that diverse training about hepatitis B/C is available to the different professional groups.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 53 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 19%
Student > Master 9 17%
Student > Bachelor 6 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 8%
Student > Postgraduate 2 4%
Other 4 8%
Unknown 18 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 42%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 8%
Psychology 3 6%
Computer Science 2 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 2%
Other 2 4%
Unknown 19 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 07 September 2015.
All research outputs
#12,873,978
of 22,824,164 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#2,959
of 7,678 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#117,097
of 266,177 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#62
of 149 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,824,164 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,678 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. 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 266,177 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 55% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 149 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 57% of its contemporaries.