↓ Skip to main content

Values, preferences and current hepatitis B and C testing practices in low- and middle-income countries: results of a survey of end users and implementers

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Infectious Diseases, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
2 policy sources
twitter
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
75 Mendeley
Title
Values, preferences and current hepatitis B and C testing practices in low- and middle-income countries: results of a survey of end users and implementers
Published in
BMC Infectious Diseases, November 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12879-017-2769-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Elena Ivanova Reipold, Alessandra Trianni, Douglas Krakower, Stefano Ongarello, Teri Roberts, Philippa Easterbrook, Claudia Denkinger

Abstract

Access to hepatitis B virus (HBV) and hepatitis C virus (HCV) diagnostics remains a key bottleneck in scale-up of access to HBV and HCV treatment, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) that lack laboratory resources and skilled personnel. To inform the development of World Health Organization (WHO) testing guidelines on who to test and how to test, we performed a "values and preferences" survey of end users and implementers of hepatitis testing in LMICs on current hepatitis B and C testing practices and acceptability of diagnostic approaches, as well as preferences for the future. The survey consisted of a four-part, 28 question online survey tool using SurveyMonkey software. The invitation to participate was sent via email to a network of contacts in hepatitis clinical care, research, advocacy and industry. The survey collected responses on current testing practices from 48 respondents in 23 LMICs. Only a small proportion of hepatitis testing is currently funded through government-supported programmes. Most limit their testing programmes to blood donor screening and although testing is recommended in several populations, this is not well implemented. Also, there is still very limited access to virological testing. The survey showed that HBV and HCV testing programmes in LMICs are inadequate and/or scarce. Lack of affordable diagnostic tests; lack of funding, public education and awareness; absence of national policies and guidelines; and a dearth of skilled health professionals are the most important barriers to scaling up HBV and HCV diagnosis and treatment.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 75 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 75 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 17 23%
Student > Master 13 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 11%
Student > Postgraduate 4 5%
Student > Bachelor 3 4%
Other 7 9%
Unknown 23 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 5%
Social Sciences 4 5%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 4%
Other 12 16%
Unknown 26 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 20 April 2022.
All research outputs
#4,032,377
of 25,107,281 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#1,344
of 8,454 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#67,825
of 335,783 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#21
of 135 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,107,281 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,454 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 335,783 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 135 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.