↓ Skip to main content

It’s a Process: Reactions to HIV Diagnosis and Engagement in HIV Care among High-Risk Heterosexuals

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Public Health, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
72 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
It’s a Process: Reactions to HIV Diagnosis and Engagement in HIV Care among High-Risk Heterosexuals
Published in
Frontiers in Public Health, May 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpubh.2017.00100
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alexandra H. Kutnick, Marya Viorst Gwadz, Charles M. Cleland, Noelle R. Leonard, Robert Freeman, Amanda S. Ritchie, Talaya McCright-Gill, Kathy Ha, Belkis Y. Martinez, The BCAP Collaborative Research Team, Angela Banfield, Mindy Belkin, Kerri O’Meally, Amy Braksmajer, Robert Quiles, Amani Sampson, Jenny Panzo, Lisa Sanfillipo, Jen Munoz, Elizabeth Silverman, David Perlman, Ann Kurth, Holly Hagan, Sam Jenness, Quentin Swain, Bridget Cross, Ether Ampofo

Abstract

After HIV diagnosis, heterosexuals in high-poverty urban areas evidence delays in linkage to care and antiretroviral therapy initiation compared to other groups. Yet barriers to/facilitators of HIV care among these high-risk heterosexuals are understudied. Under the theory of triadic influence, putative barriers to HIV care engagement include individual/attitudinal-level (e.g., fear, medical distrust), social-level (e.g., stigma), and structural-level influences (e.g., poor access). Participants were African-American/Black and Hispanic adults found newly diagnosed with HIV (N = 25) as part of a community-based HIV testing study with heterosexuals in a high-poverty, high-HIV-incidence urban area. A sequential explanatory mixed-methods design was used. We described linkage to HIV care and clinical outcomes [CD4 counts, viral load (VL) levels] over 1 year, and then addressed qualitative research questions about the experience of receiving a new HIV diagnosis, its effects on timely engagement in HIV care, and other barriers and facilitators. Participants were assessed five times, receiving a structured interview battery, laboratory tests, data extraction from the medical record, a post-test counseling session, and in-person/phone contacts to foster linkage to care. Participants were randomly selected for qualitative interviews (N = 15/25) that were recorded and transcribed, then analyzed using systematic content analysis. Participants were 50 years old, on average (SD = 7.2 years), mostly male (80%), primarily African-American/Black (88%), and low socioeconomic status. At the first follow-up, rates of engagement in care were high (78%), but viral suppression was modest (39%). Rates improved by the final follow-up (96% engaged, 62% virally suppressed). Two-thirds (69%) were adequately retained in care over 1 year. Qualitative results revealed multi-faceted responses to receiving an HIV diagnosis. Problems accepting and internalizing one's HIV status were common. Reaching acceptance of one's HIV-infected status was frequently a protracted and circuitous process, but acceptance is vital for engagement in HIV care. Fear of stigma and loss of important relationships were potent barriers to acceptance. Thus, partially as a result of difficulties accepting HIV status, delays in achieving an undetectable VL are common in this population, with serious potential negative consequences for individual and public health. Interventions to foster acceptance of HIV status are needed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 72 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 72 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 18%
Researcher 10 14%
Student > Master 10 14%
Student > Bachelor 5 7%
Other 5 7%
Other 7 10%
Unknown 22 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 15 21%
Medicine and Dentistry 12 17%
Social Sciences 6 8%
Psychology 4 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Other 10 14%
Unknown 23 32%
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 11 May 2017.
All research outputs
#13,476,814
of 22,971,207 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Public Health
#3,066
of 10,117 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#157,522
of 310,780 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Public Health
#35
of 80 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,971,207 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,117 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% 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 310,780 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 80 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 55% of its contemporaries.