| Title |
Behavioral interventions for improving dual‐method contraceptive use
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd010915.pub2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Laureen M Lopez, Laurie L Stockton, Mario Chen, Markus J Steiner, Maria F Gallo |
| Abstract |
Dual-method contraception refers to using condoms as well as another modern method of contraception. The latter (usually non-barrier) method is commonly hormonal (e.g., oral contraceptives) or a non-hormonal intrauterine device. Use of two methods can better prevent pregnancy and the transmission of HIV and other sexually transmitted infections (STIs) compared to single-method use. Unprotected sex increases risk for disease, disability, and mortality in many areas due to the prevalence and incidence of HIV/STI. Millions of women, especially in lower-resource areas, also have an unmet need for protection against unintended pregnancy. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 Kingdom | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 383 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 379 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 66 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 38 | 10% |
| Researcher | 37 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 35 | 9% |
| Unspecified | 25 | 7% |
| Other | 75 | 20% |
| Unknown | 107 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 93 | 24% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 54 | 14% |
| Social Sciences | 33 | 9% |
| Unspecified | 25 | 7% |
| Psychology | 22 | 6% |
| Other | 40 | 10% |
| Unknown | 116 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 2014.
All research outputs
#20,011,485
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#10,818
of 11,842 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#167,435
of 239,036 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#204
of 219 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,842 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 38.9. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% 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 239,036 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 219 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.