| Title |
Healthcare providers’ knowledge, experience and challenges of reporting adverse events following immunisation: a qualitative study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Health Services Research, August 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1472-6963-13-313 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Adriana Parrella, Annette Braunack-Mayer, Michael Gold, Helen Marshall, Peter Baghurst |
| Abstract |
Healthcare provider spontaneous reporting of suspected adverse events following immunisation (AEFI) is central to monitoring post-licensure vaccine safety, but little is known about how healthcare professionals recognise and report to surveillance systems. The aim of this study was explore the knowledge, experience and attitudes of medical and nursing professionals towards detecting and reporting AEFI. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 3 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 142 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 141 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 35 | 25% |
| Student > Bachelor | 18 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 14 | 10% |
| Researcher | 12 | 8% |
| Other | 7 | 5% |
| Other | 21 | 15% |
| Unknown | 35 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 37 | 26% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 22 | 15% |
| Social Sciences | 11 | 8% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 10 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 4% |
| Other | 17 | 12% |
| Unknown | 39 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 03 June 2019.
All research outputs
#2,639,472
of 22,716,996 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#1,109
of 7,599 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,488
of 196,013 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#12
of 101 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,716,996 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,599 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 196,013 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 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 101 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.