↓ Skip to main content

Public health triangulation: approach and application to synthesizing data to understand national and local HIV epidemics

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, July 2010
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (81st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
2 policy sources
twitter
3 X users

Readers on

mendeley
109 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
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
Public health triangulation: approach and application to synthesizing data to understand national and local HIV epidemics
Published in
BMC Public Health, July 2010
DOI 10.1186/1471-2458-10-447
Pubmed ID
Authors

George W Rutherford, William McFarland, Hilary Spindler, Karen White, Sadhna V Patel, John Aberle-Grasse, Keith Sabin, Nathan Smith, Stephanie Taché, Jesus M Calleja-Garcia, Rand L Stoneburner

Abstract

Public health triangulation is a process for reviewing, synthesising and interpreting secondary data from multiple sources that bear on the same question to make public health decisions. It can be used to understand the dynamics of HIV transmission and to measure the impact of public health programs. While traditional intervention research and meta-analysis would be ideal sources of information for public health decision making, they are infrequently available, and often decisions can be based only on surveillance and survey data. The process involves examination of a wide variety of data sources and both biological, behavioral and program data and seeks input from stakeholders to formulate meaningful public health questions. Finally and most importantly, it uses the results to inform public health decision-making. There are 12 discrete steps in the triangulation process, which included identification and assessment of key questions, identification of data sources, refining questions, gathering data and reports, assessing the quality of those data and reports, formulating hypotheses to explain trends in the data, corroborating or refining working hypotheses, drawing conclusions, communicating results and recommendations and taking public health action. Triangulation can be limited by the quality of the original data, the potentials for ecological fallacy and "data dredging" and reproducibility of results. Nonetheless, we believe that public health triangulation allows for the interpretation of data sets that cannot be analyzed using meta-analysis and can be a helpful adjunct to surveillance, to formal public health intervention research and to monitoring and evaluation, which in turn lead to improved national strategic planning and resource allocation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 109 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Portugal 1 <1%
Malaysia 1 <1%
Uganda 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 101 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 18%
Student > Master 18 17%
Researcher 16 15%
Other 8 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 6%
Other 23 21%
Unknown 17 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 34 31%
Social Sciences 12 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 5 5%
Other 20 18%
Unknown 27 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 15 September 2021.
All research outputs
#4,713,440
of 25,595,500 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#5,622
of 17,718 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,333
of 104,019 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#27
of 86 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,595,500 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 17,718 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% 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 104,019 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 86 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 69% of its contemporaries.