↓ Skip to main content

Disparities in HIV clinic care across Europe: findings from the EuroSIDA clinic survey

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Infectious Diseases, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
83 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
Disparities in HIV clinic care across Europe: findings from the EuroSIDA clinic survey
Published in
BMC Infectious Diseases, July 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12879-016-1685-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jeffrey V. Lazarus, Kamilla Grønborg Laut, Kelly Safreed-Harmon, Lars Peters, Margaret Johnson, Gerd Fätkenheuer, Irina Khromova, Linos Vandekerckhove, Katarzyna Maciejewska, Roxana Radoi, Anna Lisa Ridolfo, Amanda Mocroft

Abstract

Although advances in HIV medicine have yielded increasingly better treatment outcomes in recent years, HIV-positive people with access to antiretroviral therapy (ART) still face complex health challenges. The EuroSIDA Study Group surveyed its clinics to explore regional differences in clinic services. The EuroSIDA study is a prospective observational cohort study that began enrolling patients in 1994. In early 2014, we conducted a 59-item survey of the 98 then-active EuroSIDA clinics. The survey covered HIV clinical care and other aspects of patient care. The EuroSIDA East Europe study region (Belarus, Estonia, Lithuania, the Russian Federation and Ukraine) was compared to a "non-East Europe" study region comprised of all other EuroSIDA countries. A larger proportion of clinics in the East Europe group reported deferring ART in asymptomatic patients until the CD4 cell count dropped below 350 cells/mm(3) (75 % versus 25 %, p = 0.0032). Considerably smaller proportions of East Europe clinics reported that resistance testing was provided before ART initiation (17 % versus 86 %, p < 0.0001) and that it was provided upon treatment failure (58 % versus 90 %, p = 0.0040). Only 33 % of East Europe clinics reported providing hepatitis B vaccination, compared to 88 % of other clinics (p < 0.0001). Only 50 % of East Europe clinics reported having access to direct-acting antivirals for hepatitis C treatment, compared to 89 % of other clinics (p = 0.0036). There was significantly less tuberculosis/HIV treatment integration in the East Europe group (27 % versus 84 % p < 0.0001) as well as significantly less screening for cardiovascular disease (58 % versus 90 %, p = 0.014); tobacco use (50 % versus 93 %, p < 0.0001); alcohol consumption (50 % versus 93 %, p < 0.0001); and drug use (58 % versus 87 %, p = 0.029). Study findings demonstrate how specific features of HIV clinics differ across Europe. Significantly more East Europe clinics deferred ART in asymptomatic patients for longer, and significantly fewer East Europe clinics provided resistance testing before initiating ART or upon ART failure. The East Europe group of clinics also differed in regard to hepatitis B vaccination, direct-acting antiviral access, tuberculosis/HIV treatment integration and screening for other health issues. There is a need for further research to guide setting-specific decision-making regarding the optimal array of services at HIV clinics in Europe and worldwide.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 83 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 83 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 17 20%
Researcher 15 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 10%
Student > Postgraduate 6 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 5%
Other 12 14%
Unknown 21 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 27 33%
Social Sciences 8 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 5%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 4%
Other 9 11%
Unknown 29 35%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 08 March 2019.
All research outputs
#4,370,138
of 14,465,534 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#1,467
of 5,367 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#87,357
of 264,428 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,465,534 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,367 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its peers.
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 264,428 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.
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