↓ Skip to main content

Hard-to-reach populations of men who have sex with men and sex workers: a systematic review on sampling methods

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
6 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
62 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
Hard-to-reach populations of men who have sex with men and sex workers: a systematic review on sampling methods
Published in
Systematic Reviews, October 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13643-015-0129-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ana B. Barros, Sonia F. Dias, Maria Rosario O. Martins

Abstract

In public health, hard-to-reach populations are often recruited by non-probabilistic sampling methods that produce biased results. In order to overcome this, several sampling methods have been improved and developed in the last years. The aim of this systematic review was to identify all current methods used to survey most-at-risk populations of men who have sex with men and sex workers. The review also aimed to assess if there were any relations between the study populations and the sampling methods used to recruit them. Lastly, we wanted to assess if the number of publications originated in middle and low human development (MLHD) countries had been increasing in the last years. A systematic review was conducted using electronic databases and a total of 268 published studies were included in the analysis. In this review, 11 recruitment methods were identified. Semi-probabilistic methods were used most commonly to survey men who have sex with men, and the use of the Internet was the method that gathered more respondents. We found that female sex workers were more frequently recruited through non-probabilistic methods than men who have sex with men (odds = 2.2; p < 0.05; confidence interval (CI) [1.1-4.2]). In the last 6 years, the number of studies based in middle and low human development countries increased more than the number of studies based in very high and high human development countries (odds = 2.5; p < 0.05; CI [1.3-4.9]). This systematic literature review identified 11 methods used to sample men who have sex with men and female sex workers. There is an association between the type of sampling method and the population being studied. The number of studies based in middle and low human development countries has increased in the last 6 years of this study.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 62 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 62 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 21%
Student > Master 9 15%
Student > Bachelor 5 8%
Other 3 5%
Other 6 10%
Unknown 13 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 15 24%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 13%
Arts and Humanities 3 5%
Psychology 2 3%
Other 5 8%
Unknown 18 29%

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 04 November 2015.
All research outputs
#3,949,664
of 13,728,183 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#709
of 1,170 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#82,940
of 283,121 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#77
of 136 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,728,183 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,170 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.1. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% 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 283,121 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 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 136 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.