↓ Skip to main content

Acceptability and use of ready-to-use supplementary food compared to corn–soy blend as a targeted ration in an HIV program in rural Haiti: a qualitative study

Overview of attention for article published in AIDS Research and Therapy, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
91 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
Acceptability and use of ready-to-use supplementary food compared to corn–soy blend as a targeted ration in an HIV program in rural Haiti: a qualitative study
Published in
AIDS Research and Therapy, February 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12981-016-0096-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anne G. Beckett, Debbie Humphries, J. Gregory Jerome, Jessica E. Teng, Patrick Ulysse, Louise C. Ivers

Abstract

Ready-to-use supplementary food (RUSF) is increasingly used as a component of food rations for adults with HIV. We undertook a qualitative study to evaluate the acceptability and use of peanut-based RUSF compared to corn-soy blend (CSB) among adults living with HIV in rural Haiti who had been enrolled in a prospective, randomized trial comparing the impact of those rations. A total of 13 focus groups were conducted with 84 participants-42 selected from the RUSF arm of the study, and 42 from the CSB arm-using a guide with pre-designated core topics and open-ended questions. We found that RUSF was highly acceptable in terms of taste, preparation, and packaging. Both types of food ration were widely shared inside and outside households, especially with children. However, while CSB was without exception stored with the communal household food supply, RUSF was frequently separated from the household food supply and was more often reserved for consumption by individuals with HIV. RUSF was a highly acceptable food ration that, compared to CSB, was more often reserved for use by the individual with HIV. Qualitative examination of the perceptions, use, and sharing of food rations is critical to understanding and improving the efficacy of food assistance for food-insecure people living with HIV.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 91 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 91 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 15%
Student > Bachelor 14 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 12%
Researcher 10 11%
Student > Postgraduate 6 7%
Other 16 18%
Unknown 20 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 18 20%
Social Sciences 7 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 7%
Psychology 3 3%
Other 13 14%
Unknown 22 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 23 February 2016.
All research outputs
#17,789,675
of 22,851,489 outputs
Outputs from AIDS Research and Therapy
#434
of 552 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#202,638
of 297,960 outputs
Outputs of similar age from AIDS Research and Therapy
#17
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,851,489 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 552 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% 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 297,960 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.