↓ Skip to main content

Motivations, facilitators and barriers to accessing hepatitis C treatment among people who inject drugs in two South African cities

Overview of attention for article published in Harm Reduction Journal, June 2020
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
30 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
Motivations, facilitators and barriers to accessing hepatitis C treatment among people who inject drugs in two South African cities
Published in
Harm Reduction Journal, June 2020
DOI 10.1186/s12954-020-00382-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anna Versfeld, Angela McBride, Andrew Scheibe, C. Wendy Spearman

Abstract

Treatment of hepatitis C (HCV) among people who inject drugs (PWID) is a critical component of efforts to eliminate viral hepatitis. A recent study found high HCV prevalence among PWID in two cities, Pretoria (84%) and Cape Town (44%). Very few (< 5%) HCV-infected individuals attended follow-up appointments. This sub-study explores differences between stated desire for cure and appointment attendance in light of perceived facilitators and barriers to HCV treatment and care access among PWID. Two sets of semi-structured interviews were implemented in a group of HCV-infected participants opportunistically sampled and recruited at harm reduction service sites. Initial interviews, conducted before the planned hospital appointment date, asked participants (N = 17, 9 in Pretoria and 8 in Cape Town) about past experiences of healthcare provision, plans to attend their referral appointment and perceived barriers and facilitators to seeking hepatitis treatment. Second interviews (n = 9, 4 in Pretoria, 5 in Cape Town), conducted after the planned referral appointment date, asked about appointment attendance and treatment experience. Trained social scientists with experience with PWID conducted the interviews which were recorded in detailed written notes. Data was thematically analysed in NVivo 11. Despite routine experiences of being stigmatised by the healthcare system in the past, most participants (n = 16, 94%) indicated a desire to attend their appointments. Attendance motivators included the desire to be cured, fear of dying and the wish to assist the research project. Perceived barriers to appointment attendance included fear of again experiencing stigmatisation and concerns about waiting periods and drug withdrawal. Perceived facilitators included the knowledge they would be treated quickly, and with respect and access to opioid substitution therapy. In the end, very few participants (n = 5) went to their appointment. Actual barriers to attendance included lack of finances, lack of urgency and forgetting and fatalism about dying. South Africa can learn from other countries implementing HCV treatment for PWID. Successful linkage to care will require accessible, sensitive services where waiting time is limited. Psychosocial support prior to initiating referrals that focuses on building and maintaining a sense of self-worth and emphasising that delayed treatment hampers health outcomes is needed.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 30 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 20%
Researcher 6 20%
Student > Bachelor 3 10%
Student > Postgraduate 2 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 7%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 9 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 6 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 10%
Psychology 3 10%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 7%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 10 33%

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 28 July 2020.
All research outputs
#14,188,061
of 18,439,562 outputs
Outputs from Harm Reduction Journal
#700
of 727 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#207,738
of 298,031 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Harm Reduction Journal
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,439,562 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 727 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.3. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% 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 298,031 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them