| Title |
Qualitative study of the quality of sleep in marginalized individuals living with HIV
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Patient preference and adherence, June 2013
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ppa.s44595 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Parya Saberi, Megan Comfort, Nicolas Sheon, Mallory O Johnson |
| Abstract |
Sleep disturbances have been reported to be higher in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected individuals compared to the general population. Despite the consequences of poor quality of sleep (QOS), research regarding sleep disturbances in HIV infection is lacking and many questions regarding correlates of poor QOS, especially in marginalized populations, remain unanswered. We conducted one-on-one qualitative interviews with 14 marginalized HIV-infected individuals who reported poor QOS to examine self-reported correlates of sleep quality and explore the relationship between QOS and antiretroviral adherence. Findings suggest a complex and multidimensional impact of mental health issues, structural factors, and physical conditions on QOS of these individuals. Those reporting poor QOS as a barrier to antiretroviral adherence reported lower adherence due to falling asleep or feeling too tired to take medications in comparison to those who did not express this adherence barrier. These interviews underscore the importance of inquiries into a patient's QOS as an opportunity to discuss topics such as adherence, depression, suicidal ideation, and substance use. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 5 | 50% |
| Canada | 1 | 10% |
| Indonesia | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 3 | 30% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 8 | 80% |
| Scientists | 1 | 10% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 10% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 48 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 7 | 14% |
| Researcher | 7 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 10% |
| Other | 9 | 18% |
| Unknown | 10 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 24% |
| Psychology | 9 | 18% |
| Environmental Science | 2 | 4% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 4% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 8 | 16% |
| Unknown | 14 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 29 July 2013.
All research outputs
#4,274,264
of 25,584,565 outputs
Outputs from Patient preference and adherence
#259
of 1,733 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#34,749
of 206,928 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Patient preference and adherence
#6
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,584,565 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,733 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 206,928 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.