Experience in the USA
International Journal of STD and AIDS, ISSN: 0956-4624, Vol: 20, Issue: SUPPL. 1, Page: 2-6
2009
- 20Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Captures20
- Readers20
- 20
Conference Paper Description
In November 2006, the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention updated their recommendations for HIV-testing in health-care settings in the USA. The new guidelines recommended routine HIV-testing not based on patient risk, opt-out testing, no separate consent for HIV-testing and no requirement for pretest counselling. Three cardinal points underlie the changes: risk-based testing has not identified all HIV-infected individuals in the USA, opportunities for diagnosis and management of HIV are being missed and routine HIV screening is cost-effective. Routine screening for HIV is desirable and should be achievable, but challenges still remain in introducing it in the USA. State-by-State changes in laws have had to be made, the impact on providers and payers must be considered and proactive screening programmes must be supported by faith and cultural leaders in the highly affected communities. Furthermore, non-specialist clinicians must be trained to deal with all aspects of HIV-testing in an appropriate and professional manner. Despite fears that the public would not accept the new approach, many Americans believe that HIV-testing is an appropriate part of a medical check-up. With the public's support, newly diagnosed HIV-infected individuals will benefit from treatment, and society will benefit because of reduced HIV transmission.
Bibliographic Details
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know