↓ Skip to main content

Improving the identification of priority populations to increase hepatitis B testing rates, 2012

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (51st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
58 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
Improving the identification of priority populations to increase hepatitis B testing rates, 2012
Published in
BMC Public Health, February 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12889-016-2716-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Caroline van Gemert, Julie Wang, Jody Simmons, Benjamin Cowie, Douglas Boyle, Mark Stoove, Chris Enright, Margaret Hellard

Abstract

It is estimated that over 40 % of the 218,000 people with chronic hepatitis B (CHB) in Australia in 2011 are undiagnosed. A disproportionate number of those with undiagnosed infection were born in the Asia-Pacific region. Undiagnosed CHB can lead to ongoing transmission and late diagnosis limits opportunities to prevent progression to hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and cirrhosis. Strategies are needed to increase testing for hepatitis B virus (HBV) (including culturally and linguistically diverse communities, Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander (Indigenous) people and people who inject drugs). General practitioners (GPs) have a vital role in increasing HBV testing and the timely diagnosis CHB. This paper describes the impact of a GP-based screening intervention to improve CHB diagnosis among priority populations in Melbourne, Australia. A non-randomised, pre-post intervention study was conducted between 2012 and 2013 with three general practices in Melbourne, Australia. Using clinic electronic health records three priority populations known to be at increased CHB risk in Australia (1: Asian-born patients or patients of Asian ethnicity living in Australia; 2: Indigenous people; or 3): people with a history of injecting drugs were identified and their HBV status recorded. A random sample were then invited to attend their GP for HBV testing and/or vaccination. Baseline and follow-up electronic data collection identified patients that subsequently had a consultation and HBV screening test and/or vaccination. From a total of 33,297 active patients, 2674 (8 %) were identified as a priority population at baseline; 2275 (85.1 %) of these patients had unknown HBV status from which 338 (14.0 %) were randomly sampled. One-fifth (n = 73, 21.6 %) of sampled patients subsequently had a GP consultation during the study period; only four people (5.5 %) were subsequently tested for HBV (CHB detected in n = 1) and none were vaccinated against HBV. CHB infection is an important long-term health issue in Australia and strategies to increase appropriate and timely testing are required. The study was effective at identifying whether Asian-born patients and patients of Asian had been tested or vaccinated for HBV; however the intervention was not effective at increasing HBV testing.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 58 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 3%
Unknown 56 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 21%
Student > Bachelor 8 14%
Student > Master 6 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 9%
Student > Postgraduate 3 5%
Other 9 16%
Unknown 15 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 31%
Psychology 6 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 7%
Social Sciences 3 5%
Other 5 9%
Unknown 17 29%

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 07 February 2016.
All research outputs
#3,450,475
of 7,295,517 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#4,387
of 6,489 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#152,511
of 322,074 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#147
of 234 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 7,295,517 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 51st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,489 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% 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 322,074 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 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 234 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.