↓ Skip to main content

Against the Odds: Syringe Exchange Policy Implementation in Indiana

Overview of attention for article published in AIDS and Behavior, January 2017
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 (80th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
13 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
55 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
Against the Odds: Syringe Exchange Policy Implementation in Indiana
Published in
AIDS and Behavior, January 2017
DOI 10.1007/s10461-017-1688-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Beth E. Meyerson, Carrie A. Lawrence, Laura Miller, Anthony Gillespie, Daniel Raymond, Kristen Kelley, D. J. Shannon

Abstract

Indiana recently passed legislation allowing local governments to establish syringe exchanges. While the effectiveness of syringe exchange programming is established, there is a dearth of studies about associated policy adoption and implementation. This study documents the experiences of 24 Indiana counties engaged in the process of establishing syringe exchange programming under new state law. A mixed method, qualitative, exploratory case study was conducted from May 2015 to April 2016. We observed rapid and widespread policy adoption interest, and yet counties reported significant policy ambiguity, epidemiologic and resource capacity issues. The emergence of health commons involving information and tangible resource sharing networks allowed institutional rearrangement in the midst of resource scarcity; however, such rearrangement appeared to be a central threat to policy adoption and implementation given state structural barriers. The emerging commons could be a critical policy success factor, as it would achieve efficiencies not possible in the current resource environment, and can help achieve institutional rearrangement for the improvement of population health. Several recommendations for improvement are offered.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 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 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 55 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 13%
Researcher 6 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 7%
Student > Bachelor 4 7%
Other 11 20%
Unknown 14 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 10 18%
Social Sciences 9 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Computer Science 1 2%
Other 12 22%
Unknown 18 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 17 February 2017.
All research outputs
#4,517,573
of 24,717,821 outputs
Outputs from AIDS and Behavior
#658
of 3,643 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#84,764
of 426,781 outputs
Outputs of similar age from AIDS and Behavior
#22
of 105 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,717,821 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,643 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 426,781 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 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 105 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.