↓ Skip to main content

Where does public funding for HIV prevention go to? The case of condoms versus microbicides and vaccines

Overview of attention for article published in Globalization and Health, January 2010
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter
peer_reviews
1 peer review site

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
32 Mendeley
citeulike
1 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
Where does public funding for HIV prevention go to? The case of condoms versus microbicides and vaccines
Published in
Globalization and Health, January 2010
DOI 10.1186/1744-8603-6-23
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anny JTP Peters, Maja Scharf, Francien TM van Driel, Willy HM Jansen

Abstract

This study analyses the priorities of public donors in funding HIV prevention by either integrated condom programming or HIV preventive microbicides and vaccines in the period between 2000 and 2008. It further compares the public funding investments of the USA government and European governments, including the EU, as we expect the two groups to invest differently in HIV prevention options, because their policies on sexual and reproductive health and rights are different. We use two existing officially UN endorsed databases to compare the public donor funding streams for HIV prevention of these two distinct contributors. In the period 2000-2008, the relative share of public funding for integrated condom programming dropped significantly, while that for research on vaccines and microbicides increased. The European public donors gave a larger share to condom programming than the United States, but exhibited a similar downward trend in favour of funding research on vaccines and microbicides. Both public donor parties invested progressively more in research on vaccines and microbicides rather than addressing the shortage of condoms and improving access to integrated condom programming in developing countries.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 6%
Germany 1 3%
Unknown 29 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 25%
Researcher 6 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 9%
Other 2 6%
Other 6 19%
Unknown 3 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 14 44%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 9%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 9%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 6%
Philosophy 2 6%
Other 5 16%
Unknown 3 9%

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 06 March 2015.
All research outputs
#6,766,793
of 12,485,879 outputs
Outputs from Globalization and Health
#523
of 645 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#93,020
of 220,237 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Globalization and Health
#28
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,485,879 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 645 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.5. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% 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 220,237 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 36 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.