↓ Skip to main content

A Systems Thinking Approach to Understanding and Demonstrating the Role of Peer-Led Programs and Leadership in the Response to HIV and Hepatitis C: Findings From the W3 Project

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Public Health, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
2 policy sources
twitter
26 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
64 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
A Systems Thinking Approach to Understanding and Demonstrating the Role of Peer-Led Programs and Leadership in the Response to HIV and Hepatitis C: Findings From the W3 Project
Published in
Frontiers in Public Health, August 2018
DOI 10.3389/fpubh.2018.00231
Pubmed ID
Authors

Graham Brown, Daniel Reeders, Aaron Cogle, Annie Madden, Jules Kim, Darryl O'Donnell

Abstract

The central role of community and peer-led programs has been a key characteristic of the Australian partnership response to HIV and hepatitis C since the beginning of the epidemics. Despite this, peer-led programs continue to have limited capacity to demonstrate their role and value as part of a multi-sectoral response. What makes one peer-led program a better investment than another? What role does the rest of the sector have in ensuring we gain the most value from these investments? To investigate this, we facilitated interactive systems thinking methods with 10 programs working within communities of people who inject drugs, gay men, sex workers and people living with HIV across Australia. This included articulating program theories in diagram and textual form to help us understand the role of peer-based programs promoting peer leadership within the Australian HIV and hepatitis C responses. Our aim was to develop a framework for monitoring and evaluation that could be applied to peer led programs at different levels and in different contexts. We found that for peer-led programs to fulfill their role, and to navigate the rapid changes occurring in the both epidemics, they need to: demonstrate the credibility of their peer and community insights; continually adapt to changing contexts and policy priorities in tandem with their communities; and maintain influence in both community and policy systems. We developed a framework of four key functions (Engagement, Alignment, Adaptation, and Influence) which peer-based programs need to demonstrate, which form the basis for identifying quality indicators. This article presents a new way of framing and monitoring investments in peer-led programs and peer eadership actions by these programs. If health policy is committed to strengthening the leadership shown by affected communities, then we need to understand, enhance, monitor and value the role of peer-led programs and peer leadership within the overall prevention system. We believe the W3 framework, drawing on systems thinking and modeling, can support funders, policy-makers and programs to achieve this.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 26 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 64 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 64 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 14%
Researcher 6 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 9%
Other 4 6%
Student > Bachelor 4 6%
Other 8 13%
Unknown 27 42%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 11 17%
Social Sciences 10 16%
Business, Management and Accounting 5 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 8%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 2%
Other 3 5%
Unknown 29 45%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 26. 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 02 February 2021.
All research outputs
#1,444,575
of 24,942,536 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Public Health
#678
of 13,297 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#30,125
of 340,699 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Public Health
#11
of 97 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,942,536 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,297 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 340,699 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 97 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.