↓ Skip to main content

Mandating influenza vaccinations for health care workers: analysing opportunities for policy change using Kingdon’s agenda setting framework

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
79 Mendeley
Title
Mandating influenza vaccinations for health care workers: analysing opportunities for policy change using Kingdon’s agenda setting framework
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, September 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12913-016-1772-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Angela Jackson-Lee, Neil G. Barr, Glen E. Randall

Abstract

The consequences of annual influenza outbreaks are often underestimated by the general public. Influenza poses a serious public health threat around the world, particularly for the most vulnerable populations. Fortunately, vaccination can mitigate the negative effects of this common infectious disease. Although inoculating frontline health care workers (HCWs) helps minimize disease transmission, some HCWs continue to resist participating in voluntary immunization programs. A potential solution to this problem is government-mandated vaccination for HCWs; however, in practice, there are substantial barriers to the adoption of such policies. The purpose of this paper is to identify the likelihood of adopting a policy for mandatory immunization of HCWs in Ontario based on a historical review of barriers to the agenda setting process. Documents from secondary data sources were analysed using Kingdon's agenda setting framework of three converging streams leading to windows of opportunity for possible policy adoption. The problems, politics, and policies streams of Kingdon's framework have converged and diverged repeatedly over an extended period (policy windows have opened and closed several times). In each instance, a technically feasible solution was available. However, despite the evidence supporting the value of HCW immunization, alignment of the three agenda setting streams occurred for very short periods of time, during which, opposition lobby groups reacted, making the proposed solution less politically acceptable. Prior to the adoption of any new policies, issues must reach a government's decision agenda. Based on Kingdon's agenda setting framework, this only occurs when there is alignment of the problems, politics, and policies streams. Understanding this process makes it easier to predict the likelihood of a policy being adopted, and ultimately implemented. Such learning may be applied to policy issues in other jurisdictions. In the case of mandatory influenza vaccinations for HCWs in Ontario, it seems highly unlikely that a new policy will be adopted until perception of the problem's importance is sufficient to overcome the political opposition to implementing a solution and thus, create a window of opportunity that is open long enough to support change.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 79 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 79 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 26 33%
Student > Bachelor 14 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 6%
Student > Postgraduate 3 4%
Researcher 3 4%
Other 8 10%
Unknown 20 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 15%
Social Sciences 8 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 4%
Other 16 20%
Unknown 22 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 14 November 2022.
All research outputs
#15,021,206
of 23,106,934 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#5,456
of 7,745 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#195,630
of 323,403 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#136
of 187 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,106,934 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,745 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% 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 323,403 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 187 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.