↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Addressing intravaginal practices in women with HIV and at-risk for HIV infection, a mixed methods pilot study

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Women's Health, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
38 Mendeley
Title
Addressing intravaginal practices in women with HIV and at-risk for HIV infection, a mixed methods pilot study
Published in
International Journal of Women's Health, February 2017
DOI 10.2147/ijwh.s125883
Pubmed ID
Authors

Maria L Alcaide, Violeta J Rodriguez, Margaret A Fischl, Deborah L Jones, Stephen M Weiss

Abstract

Intravaginal practices (IVPs), include intravaginal cleansing (cleansing the inside of the vagina) or intravaginal insertion of products for hygiene, health or sexuality reasons. IVPs are associated with adverse female health outcomes, development of bacterial vaginosis, HIV acquisition and transmission. A mixed methods approach was used in this study to examine the prevalence of IVP, assess reasons for engagement, and perceptions of IVP among a sample of minority (African-American and Hispanic) women infected, or at-risk, for HIV in Miami, USA, a city with increasing numbers of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) and HIV. Three focus groups (total n=20) and quantitative assessments (n=72) were conducted with women infected or uninfected with HIV. In the qualitative assessments, most women reported engaging in both intravaginal cleansing and intravaginal insertion, and stated the main motivation for IVP was hygiene. The quantitative assessments confirmed that cleansing with water alone, soap with water or using commercial douches was common, as well as intravaginal insertion using a cloth or a rag in both HIV-infected and uninfected women. Women with HIV infection reported less use of water and water and soap for IVPs, and reported learning about the potential harm of IVP from their HIV health care providers. Despite their health risks, IVP appeared common in both HIV-infected and at-risk minority women, and interventions to decrease IVP could have important health implications among populations with high rates of IVP, STIs and HIV.

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 38 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 26%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 18%
Student > Bachelor 5 13%
Researcher 3 8%
Other 2 5%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 9 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 13%
Social Sciences 3 8%
Psychology 3 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 5%
Other 9 24%
Unknown 10 26%
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 01 May 2017.
All research outputs
#14,337,934
of 22,959,818 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Women's Health
#439
of 782 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#229,702
of 420,420 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Women's Health
#7
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,959,818 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 782 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.6. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 420,420 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.