↓ Skip to main content

Finding what works: identification of implementation strategies for the integration of methadone maintenance therapy and HIV services in Vietnam

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
103 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
Finding what works: identification of implementation strategies for the integration of methadone maintenance therapy and HIV services in Vietnam
Published in
Implementation Science, April 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13012-016-0420-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Vivian F. Go, Giuliana J. Morales, Nguyen Tuyet Mai, Ross C. Brownson, Tran Viet Ha, William C. Miller

Abstract

Integration of methadone maintenance therapy (MMT) and HIV services is an evidence-based intervention (EBI) that benefits HIV care and reduces costs. While MMT/HIV integration is recommended by the World Health Organization and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, it is not widely implemented, due to organizational and operational barriers. Our study applied an innovative process to identify implementation strategies to address these barriers. Our process was adapted from the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) protocol and consisted of two main phases. In Phase 1, we conducted 16 in-depth interviews with stakeholders and developed matrices to display barriers to integration. In Phase 2, we selected implementation strategies that addressed the barriers identified in Phase 1 and conducted a poll to vote on the most important and feasible strategies among a panel with expertise in cultural context and implementation science. Barriers fell into two broad categories: policy and programmatic. At the policy level, barriers included lack of a national mandate, different structures (MMT vs. HIV clinic) for cost reimbursement and staff salaries, and resistance on the part of staff to take on additional tasks without compensation. Programmatic barriers included the need for cross-training in MMT and HIV tasks, staff accountability, and commitment from local leaders. In Phase 2, we focused on programmatic challenges. Based on voting results and iterative dialogue with our expert panel, we selected several implementation strategies in the domains of technical assistance, staff accountability, and local commitment that targeted these barriers. Key programmatic barriers to MMT/HIV integration in Vietnam may be addressed through implementation strategies that focus on technical assistance, staff accountability, and local commitment. Our process of identifying implementation strategies was simple, low cost, and potentially replicable to other settings.

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 103 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 101 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 17 17%
Student > Master 17 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 12%
Student > Bachelor 8 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 7%
Other 14 14%
Unknown 28 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 24 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 16%
Social Sciences 12 12%
Psychology 7 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Other 9 9%
Unknown 32 31%
Attention Score in Context

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 22 April 2016.
All research outputs
#14,195,752
of 22,865,319 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#1,482
of 1,722 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#158,770
of 299,364 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#43
of 44 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,865,319 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,722 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.7. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% 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 299,364 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 44 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.