↓ Skip to main content

Identification of gaps for implementation science in the HIV prevention, care and treatment cascade; a qualitative study in 19 districts in Uganda

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Research Notes, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
147 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
Identification of gaps for implementation science in the HIV prevention, care and treatment cascade; a qualitative study in 19 districts in Uganda
Published in
BMC Research Notes, April 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13104-016-2024-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Francis Bajunirwe, Flora Tumwebaze, George Abongomera, Denis Akakimpa, Cissy Kityo, Peter N. Mugyenyi

Abstract

Over the last 20 years, countries in sub Saharan Africa have made significant strides in the implementation of programs for HIV prevention, care and treatment. Despite, the significant progress made, many targets set by the United Nations have not been met. There remains a large gap between the ideal and what has been achieved. There are several operational issues that may be responsible for this gap, and these need to be addressed in order to achieve the targets. Therefore, the aim of this study was to identify gaps in the HIV prevention, care and treatment cascade, in a large district based HIV implementation program. We aimed to identify gaps that are amenable for evaluation using implementation science, in order to improve the delivery of HIV programs in rural Uganda. We conducted key informant (KI) interviews with 60 district health officers and managers of HIV/AIDS clinics and organizations and 32 focus group discussions with exit clients seeking care and treatment for HIV in the 19 districts. The data analysis process was guided using a framework approach. The recordings were transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were read back and forth and codes generated based on the framework. Nine emerging themes that comprise the gaps were identified and these were referral mechanisms indicating several loop holes, low levels of integration of HIV/TB services, low uptake of services for PMTCT services by pregnant women, low coverage of services for most at risk populations (MARPs), poor HIV coordination structures in the districts, poor continuity in the delivery of pediatric HIV/AIDS services, limited community support for orphans and vulnerable (OVC's), inadequate home based care services and HIV services and support for discordant couples. The themes indicate there are plenty of gaps that need to be covered and have been ignored by current programs. Our study has identified several gaps and suggested several interventions that should be tested before large scale implementation. The implementation of these programs should be adequately evaluated in order to provide field evidence of effectiveness and replicability in similar areas.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 147 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 146 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 31 21%
Researcher 24 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 12%
Student > Bachelor 9 6%
Lecturer 8 5%
Other 27 18%
Unknown 31 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 37 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 27 18%
Social Sciences 18 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 3%
Engineering 4 3%
Other 23 16%
Unknown 33 22%
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 19 April 2016.
All research outputs
#15,994,084
of 23,740,970 outputs
Outputs from BMC Research Notes
#2,346
of 4,312 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#183,038
of 302,325 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Research Notes
#59
of 99 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,740,970 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,312 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% 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 302,325 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 99 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.