↓ Skip to main content

Factors Associated with Recent HIV Testing among Heterosexuals at High Risk for HIV Infection in New York City

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Public Health, April 2016
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 (75th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
103 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
Factors Associated with Recent HIV Testing among Heterosexuals at High Risk for HIV Infection in New York City
Published in
Frontiers in Public Health, April 2016
DOI 10.3389/fpubh.2016.00076
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marya Gwadz, Charles M. Cleland, Alexandra Kutnick, Noelle R. Leonard, Amanda S. Ritchie, Laura Lynch, Angela Banfield, Talaya McCright-Gill, Montserrat del Olmo, Belkis Martinez

Abstract

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends persons at high risk for HIV infection in the United States receive annual HIV testing to foster early HIV diagnosis and timely linkage to health care. Heterosexuals make up a significant proportion of incident HIV infections (>25%) but test for HIV less frequently than those in other risk categories. Yet factors that promote or impede annual HIV testing among heterosexuals are poorly understood. The present study examines individual/attitudinal-, social-, and structural-level factors associated with past-year HIV testing among heterosexuals at high risk for HIV. Participants were African-American/Black and Hispanic heterosexual adults (N = 2307) residing in an urban area with both high poverty and HIV prevalence rates. Participants were recruited by respondent-driven sampling in 2012-2015 and completed a computerized structured assessment battery covering background factors, multi-level putative facilitators of HIV testing, and HIV testing history. Separate logistic regression analysis for males and females identified factors associated with past-year HIV testing. Participants were mostly male (58%), African-American/Black (75%), and 39 years old on average (SD = 12.06 years). Lifetime homelessness (54%) and incarceration (62%) were common. Half reported past-year HIV testing (50%) and 37% engaged in regular, annual HIV testing. Facilitators of HIV testing common to both genders included sexually transmitted infection (STI) testing or STI diagnosis, peer norms supporting HIV testing, and HIV testing access. Among women, access to general medical care and extreme poverty further predicted HIV testing, while recent drug use reduced the odds of past-year HIV testing. Among men, past-year HIV testing was also associated with lifetime incarceration and substance use treatment. The present study identified gaps in rates of HIV testing among heterosexuals at high risk for HIV, and both common and gender-specific facilitators of HIV testing. Findings suggest a number of avenues for increasing HIV testing rates, including increasing the number and types of settings offering high-quality HIV testing; promoting STI as well as HIV testing; better integrating STI and HIV testing systems; implementing peer-driven social/behavioral intervention approaches to harness the positive influence of social networks and reduce unfavorable shared peer norms; and specialized approaches for women who use drugs.

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 7 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 103 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 103 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 17%
Student > Master 16 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 10%
Student > Bachelor 8 8%
Researcher 8 8%
Other 21 20%
Unknown 23 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 15%
Social Sciences 15 15%
Psychology 6 6%
Unspecified 6 6%
Other 15 15%
Unknown 28 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 31 July 2023.
All research outputs
#5,402,609
of 26,397,269 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Public Health
#2,466
of 14,824 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#76,007
of 314,749 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Public Health
#19
of 72 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,397,269 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,824 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 314,749 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 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 72 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.