↓ Skip to main content

Adapting an Evidence-Based HIV Prevention Intervention Targeting High-Risk Migrant Workers: The Process and Outcome of Formative Research

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Public Health, 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
4 X users

Readers on

mendeley
54 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
Adapting an Evidence-Based HIV Prevention Intervention Targeting High-Risk Migrant Workers: The Process and Outcome of Formative Research
Published in
Frontiers in Public Health, March 2016
DOI 10.3389/fpubh.2016.00061
Pubmed ID
Authors

Roman Shrestha, Pramila Karki, Santosh Pandey, Michael Copenhaver

Abstract

Historically, HIV prevention efforts in Nepal have primarily focused on heterosexual transmission, particularly, among female sex workers and their male clients, with little acknowledgment of the contribution of migrant workers to the epidemic. The very few HIV prevention efforts that have been attempted with migrants have been unsuccessful primarily due to stigma, discrimination, and insufficient availability of culturally relevant evidence-based interventions (EBIs). As an initial step toward addressing this unmet need, we conducted formative research aimed at adapting an evidence-based HIV risk-reduction intervention for implementation among migrants in Nepal. Our formative work involved a critical examination of established EBIs and associated published reports complemented by data elicited through structured interviews with members of the target population and key stakeholders. Between July and August, 2014, we conducted structured one-on-one interview with migrants (n = 5) and key stakeholder (e.g., counselors, field workers, and project coordinator; n = 5), which focused on the HIV risk profiles of the migrants and on ways to optimize intervention content, delivery, and placement within the community-based settings. Data analysis followed a thematic analysis approach utilizing several qualitative data analysis techniques, including inductive analysis, cross-case analysis, and analytical coding of textual data. Based on formative research, we adapted the Holistic Health Recovery Program, an EBI, to consist of four 30-min sessions that cover a range of topics relevant to migrants in Nepal. The intervention was adapted with flexibility, so that it could be provided in an individual format, implemented within or outside the community-based organization, and it can be delivered in either consecutive or weekly sessions based on time constraints. This paper provides a detailed description of the formative research process in preparation for the adaptation of an EBI - taking into account both empirical evidence and input from target population and key stakeholders - for use with migrants in Nepal. We hope that this study will help to inform similar work in the future as a growing number of EBIs have become widely available, but may not yet be in optimal form for implementation in real-world community-based settings.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

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.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 54 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 54 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 22%
Student > Master 5 9%
Lecturer 4 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 6%
Other 8 15%
Unknown 19 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 15%
Psychology 6 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 11%
Social Sciences 5 9%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 4%
Other 7 13%
Unknown 20 37%
Attention Score in Context

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 14 May 2016.
All research outputs
#15,846,769
of 26,367,306 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Public Health
#4,747
of 14,728 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#162,455
of 317,421 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Public Health
#39
of 81 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,367,306 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,728 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% 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 317,421 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 81 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.