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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Study protocol of “Our Choice”: a randomized controlled trial of the integration of safer conception counseling to transform HIV family planning services in Uganda
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Implementation Science, August 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13012-018-0793-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Kathy Goggin, Emily A. Hurley, Jolly Beyeza-Kashesya, Violet Gwokyalya, Sarah Finocchario-Kessler, Josephine Birungi, Deborah Mindry, Rhoda K. Wanyenze, Glenn J. Wagner |
| Abstract |
About 40% of HIV-positive women in sub-Saharan Africa become pregnant post-diagnosis. Despite about half of their pregnancies being planned, safer conception methods (SCM) are underutilized among serodiscordant couples, partially due to the fact that safer conception counseling (SCC) has not been integrated into routine HIV family planning (FP) services. Our Choice is a comprehensive FP intervention that promotes unbiased childbearing consultations to ensure clients receive SCC or contraception services to achieve their desired reproductive goals. The intervention is theoretically grounded and has demonstrated preliminarily feasibility and acceptance through pilot testing. This three-arm cluster randomized controlled trial compares two implementation strategies for integrating Our Choice into routine FP services vs. usual care. Six sites in Uganda will be randomized to receive either (1) Our Choice intervention with enhanced training and supervision provided by study staff (SCC1), (2) Our Choice intervention implemented by the Ministry of Health's standard approach to disseminating new services (SCC2), or (3) existing FP services (usual care). Our Choice and usual care FP services will be implemented simultaneously over a 30-month period. Sixty clients in serodiscordant relationships who express childbearing desires will be enrolled by a study coordinator at each site (n = 360) and followed for 12 months or post-pregnancy (once, if applicable). Analysis will compare intervention arms (SCC1 and SCC2) to usual care and then to each other (SCC1 vs. SCC2) on the primary outcome of correct use of either SCM (if trying to conceive) or dual contraception (if pregnancy is not desired). Secondary outcomes (i.e., pregnancy, use of prevention of mother-to-child transmission services, condom use, and partner seroconversion) and cost-effectiveness will also be examined. Findings will provide critical information about the success of implementation models of varying intensity for integrating SCC into FP, thereby informing policy and resource allocation within and beyond Uganda. NCT03167879 ClinicalTrials.gov, Registered 30 May, 2017. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 20% |
| Colombia | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 3 | 60% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 40% |
| Scientists | 1 | 20% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 20% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 20% |
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 | 29 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 19 | 10% |
| Researcher | 16 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 6% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 11 | 6% |
| Other | 26 | 14% |
| Unknown | 77 | 41% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 32 | 17% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 30 | 16% |
| Social Sciences | 12 | 6% |
| Psychology | 9 | 5% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 5 | 3% |
| Other | 22 | 12% |
| Unknown | 80 | 42% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 12 September 2018.
All research outputs
#13,624,398
of 23,099,576 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#1,415
of 1,726 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#169,592
of 331,095 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#36
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,099,576 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,726 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.8. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% 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 331,095 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 37 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.