↓ Skip to main content
Embed badge What is this page?

Implementing nurse-initiated and managed antiretroviral treatment (NIMART) in South Africa: a qualitative process evaluation of the STRETCH trial

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, July 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
81 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
225 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike

What is this page?

Summary Twitter Dimensions citations
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
Implementing nurse-initiated and managed antiretroviral treatment (NIMART) in South Africa: a qualitative process evaluation of the STRETCH trial
Published in
Implementation Science, July 2012
DOI 10.1186/1748-5908-7-66
Pubmed ID
22800379
Authors

Daniella Georgeu, Christopher J Colvin, Simon Lewin, Lara Fairall, Max O Bachmann, Kerry Uebel, Merrick Zwarenstein, Beverly Draper, Eric D Bateman

Abstract

Task-shifting is promoted widely as a mechanism for expanding antiretroviral treatment (ART) access. However, the evidence for nurse-initiated and managed ART (NIMART) in Africa is limited, and little is known about the key barriers and enablers to implementing NIMART programmes on a large scale. The STRETCH (Streamlining Tasks and Roles to Expand Treatment and Care for HIV) programme was a complex educational and organisational intervention implemented in the Free State Province of South Africa to enable nurses providing primary HIV/AIDS care to expand their roles and include aspects of care and treatment usually provided by physicians. STRETCH used a phased implementation approach and ART treatment guidelines tailored specifically to nurses. The effects of STRETCH on pre-ART mortality, ART provision, and the quality of HIV/ART care were evaluated through a randomised controlled trial. This study was conducted alongside the trial to develop a contextualised understanding of factors affecting the implementation of the programme.

View on publisher site

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 225 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 1%
South Africa 2 <1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Georgia 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Unknown 216 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 43 19%
Researcher 40 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 28 12%
Student > Bachelor 19 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 5%
Other 58 26%
Unknown 25 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 87 39%
Nursing and Health Professions 32 14%
Social Sciences 31 14%
Psychology 12 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 7 3%
Other 24 11%
Unknown 32 14%

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 17 July 2012.
All research outputs
#7,251,660
of 12,079,889 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#1,098
of 1,267 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#61,387
of 112,509 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#19
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,079,889 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 1,267 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.7. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% 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 112,509 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 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.

This page is provided by Altmetric.