↓ Skip to main content

Lessons learned from respondent-driven sampling recruitment in Nairobi: experiences from the field

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Research Notes, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
82 Mendeley
Title
Lessons learned from respondent-driven sampling recruitment in Nairobi: experiences from the field
Published in
BMC Research Notes, March 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13104-016-1965-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jerry Okal, Henry F. Raymond, Waimar Tun, Helgar Musyoki, Sufia Dadabhai, Dita Broz, Joan Nyamu, David Kuria, Nicholas Muraguri, Scott Geibel

Abstract

Respondent-driven sampling (RDS) is used in a variety of settings to study hard-to-reach populations at risk for HIV and sexually transmitted infections. However, practices leading to successful recruitment among diverse populations in low-resource settings are seldom reported. We implemented the first, integrated, bio-behavioural surveillance survey among men who have sex with men, female sex workers and people who injected drugs in Nairobi, Kenya. The survey period was June 2010 to March 2011, with a target sample size of 600 participants per key populations. Formative research was initially conducted to assess feasibility of the survey. Weekly monitoring reports of respondent characteristics and recruitment chain graphs from NetDraw illustrated patterns and helped to fill recruitment gaps. RDS worked well with men who have sex with men and female sex workers with recruitment initiating at a desirable pace that was maintained throughout the survey. Networks of people who injected drugs were well-integrated, but recruitment was slower than the men who have sex with men and female sex workers surveys. By closely monitoring RDS implementation and conducting formative research, RDS studies can effectively develop and adapt strategies to improve recruitment and improve adherence to the underlying RDS theory and assumptions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 82 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Unknown 81 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 18 22%
Student > Master 15 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 12%
Student > Bachelor 8 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 6%
Other 7 9%
Unknown 19 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 15%
Social Sciences 12 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 2%
Other 11 13%
Unknown 23 28%
Attention Score in Context

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 13 March 2016.
All research outputs
#15,364,458
of 22,856,968 outputs
Outputs from BMC Research Notes
#2,315
of 4,267 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#178,381
of 299,532 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Research Notes
#71
of 116 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,856,968 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,267 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% 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 299,532 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 116 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.