↓ Skip to main content

Uptake and linkage into care over one year of providing HIV testing and counselling through community and health facility testing modalities in urban informal settlement of Kibera, Nairobi Kenya

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (55th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
89 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
Uptake and linkage into care over one year of providing HIV testing and counselling through community and health facility testing modalities in urban informal settlement of Kibera, Nairobi Kenya
Published in
BMC Public Health, May 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12889-016-3033-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Samuel Muhula, Peter Memiah, Lilian Mbau, Happiness Oruko, Bebora Baker, Geoffrey Ikiara, Margaret Mungai, Meshack Ndirangu, Dunstan Achwoka, Festus Ilako

Abstract

We examine the uptake of HIV Testing and Counselling (HTC) and linkage into care over one year of providing HTC through community and health facility testing modalities among people living in Kibera informal urban settlement in Nairobi Kenya. We analyzed program data on health facility-based HIV testing and counselling and community- based testing and counselling approaches for the period starting October 2013 to September 2014. Univariate and bivariate analysis methods were used to compare the two approaches with regard to uptake of HTC and subsequent linkage to care. The exact Confidence Intervals (CI) to the proportions were approximated using simple normal approximation to binomial distribution method. Majority of the 18,591 clients were tested through health facility-based testing approaches 72.5 % (n = 13485) vs those tested through community-based testing comprised 27.5 % (n = 5106). More clients tested at health facilities were reached through Provider Initiated Testing and Counselling PITC 81.7 % (n = 11015) while 18.3 % were reached through Voluntary Counselling and Testing (VCT)/Client Initiated Testing and Counselling (CITC) services. All clients who tested positive during health facility-based testing were successfully linked to care either at the project sites or sites of client choice while not all who tested positive during community based testing were linked to care. The HIV prevalence among all those who were tested for HIV in the program was 5.2 % (n = 52, 95 % CI: 3.9 %-6.8 %). Key study limitation included use of aggregate data to report uptake of HTC through the two testing approaches and not being able to estimate the population in the catchment area likely to test for HIV. Health facility-based HTC approach achieved more clients tested for HIV, and this method also resulted in identifying greater numbers of people who were HIV positive in Kibera slum within one year period of testing for HIV compared to community-based HTC approach. Linking HIV positive clients to care proved much easier during health facility- based HTC compared to community- based HTC.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 89 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 89 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 18 20%
Student > Master 17 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 7%
Other 5 6%
Other 14 16%
Unknown 18 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 25 28%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 13%
Social Sciences 12 13%
Psychology 4 4%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 3%
Other 12 13%
Unknown 21 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 01 May 2017.
All research outputs
#7,486,178
of 22,881,154 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#7,913
of 14,922 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#107,213
of 298,985 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#118
of 186 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,881,154 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,922 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.9. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% 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 298,985 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 55% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 186 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.