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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Vaccine uptake in the Irish Travelling community: an audit of general practice records.
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Public Health, September 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1093/pubmed/fdw088 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
K C Dixon, R Mullis, T Blumenfeld |
| Abstract |
Compared to the general population, the Traveller community has substantial health inequalities. Vaccination coverage in Traveller children is estimated to be low and Travellers are at higher risk of vaccine-preventable diseases due to their social circumstances. Audit of vaccination history of Traveller (n = 214) and non-Traveller (n = 776) children registered at a general practice in England. The Green Book childhood immunization schedule was used as a reference standard. There was significantly lower coverage for Traveller children compared to non-Traveller children for all vaccinations in the routine childhood immunization schedule. The percentage of children completing the schedule at all time points was significantly lower in the Traveller community. Traveller communities have significantly lower uptake of vaccinations, and therefore Travellers' children should be targeted by general practitioners for catch-up vaccination to improve outcomes for individuals and local herd immunity. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Ireland | 4 | 36% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 18% |
| Unknown | 5 | 45% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 45% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 5 | 45% |
| Scientists | 1 | 9% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 35 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 6 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 14% |
| Unspecified | 3 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 3 | 9% |
| Unknown | 10 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 23% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 14% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 9% |
| Unspecified | 3 | 9% |
| Psychology | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 3 | 9% |
| Unknown | 12 | 34% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 32. 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 31 March 2024.
All research outputs
#1,246,669
of 25,605,018 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Public Health
#231
of 2,459 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,182
of 328,520 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Public Health
#5
of 44 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,605,018 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,459 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 328,520 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 44 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.