Automated Author ProfileKhan, James
University of California, San Francisco
Khan, James
Current S-Index
Sum of Dataset Indices for all datasets
Average Dataset Index per Dataset
Average Dataset Index per dataset
Total Datasets
Total datasets for this author
Average FAIR Score
Average FAIR Score per dataset
Total Citations
Total citations to the author's datasets
Total Mentions
Total mentions of the author's datasets
S-Index Interpretation
The S-Index (Sharing Index) is a comprehensive metric that represents the cumulative impact of all your datasets. It is calculated as the sum of Dataset Index scores across all your claimed datasets.
What it means:
- A higher S-index indicates greater overall impact of your datasets relative to typical datasets in their fields of research
- The S-Index grows as you add more datasets or as existing datasets gain more citations and mentions
- It provides a single number to track your research data impact over time
Current S-Index: 2.2 (sum of 1 dataset Dataset Index scores)
More information here.
S-Index Over Time
Cumulative Citations Over Time
Cumulative Mentions Over Time
Datasets
Objectives: To estimate the cost of HPV-based screening through Community health campaigns (CHCs) and home-based testing. Setting: Community health campaigns (CHCs) and home-based testing in six communities in rural western Kenya. Participants: CHCs and home-based screening reached 2297 and 1002 women aged 25 to 65 years respectively. Outcome measures: Outcome measures were overall cost per woman screened achieved through the CHCs and home-based testing, and the cost per woman for each activity comprising the screening intervention. Results: The mean cost per woman screened through CHCs and home-based testing were similar, at $37.7 (range $26.4 - $52.0) and $37.1 (range $27.6 - $54.0), respectively. For CHCs, personnel represented 49% of overall cost, supplies 25%, services 5%, and capital goods 23%. For home-based testing, these were: personnel 73%, supplies 25%, services 1%, and capital goods 2%. A greater number of participants was associated with a lower cost per participant. Conclusions: The mean cost per woman screened is comparable for CHC and home-based testing, with differences in type of input. The CHCs generally reached more eligible women in the 6 communities, whereas home-based strategies more efficiently reached populations with low screening rates.
Authors
- Olwanda, Easter ;
- Khan, James ;
- Choi, Yujung ;
- Islam, Jessica ;
- Huchko, Megan