↓ Skip to main content

Mass Psychogenic Illness After Vaccination

Overview of attention for article published in Drug Safety, November 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#38 of 1,872)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
3 policy sources
twitter
90 X users
facebook
8 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
50 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
59 Mendeley
Title
Mass Psychogenic Illness After Vaccination
Published in
Drug Safety, November 2012
DOI 10.2165/00002018-200326090-00001
Pubmed ID
Authors

C. John Clements

Abstract

When vaccines are administered to groups, the physical reactions of the recipients may be similar, causing a form of mass reaction, the mechanism for which is the same as that for mass reactions from other causes. These phenomena have been categorised as mass psychogenic illness (MPI), and have been defined as the collective occurrence of a constellation of symptoms suggestive of organic illness but without an identified cause in a group of people with shared beliefs about the cause of the symptom(s). A review of the literature shows that such outbreaks have been reported in differing cultural and environmental settings including developing and industrialised countries, in the work place, on public transport, in schools, and the military. The perceived threats have been against agents such as food poisoning, fire and toxic gases. Whatever the place or perceived threat, the response seems to be similar. The symptoms generally included headache, dizziness, weakness, and loss of consciousness. Once under way, MPIs are not easy to stop. Incidents reported in the literature show that they can quickly gather momentum and can be amplified by the press who disseminate information rapidly, escalating the events. Management of such mass events can be extremely difficult. Should the public health official in charge continue to try and determine the cause, or should this person call off the entire investigation? It is suggested here that once vaccines are identified as a probable cause of the phenomenon, a dismissive approach may actually be harmful. Unless the spokesperson has already earned a high level of trust, the public are not likely to be convinced easily that nothing was wrong with the vaccine until it has been tested. An increased awareness of MPIs on the part of organisers of future mass vaccination campaigns seems appropriate. Immunisation managers should be aware that mass immunisation campaigns could generate such mass reactions. It is therefore essential that surveillance/reporting systems for reporting adverse events be improved before such campaigns. A mass campaign using a smallpox vaccine should be accompanied by a surveillance system capable of distinguishing between multiple cases of conventionally understood vaccine reactions and outbreaks of mass psychogenic illness.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 90 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 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 59 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 14%
Student > Master 7 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 10%
Student > Postgraduate 6 10%
Student > Bachelor 5 8%
Other 11 19%
Unknown 16 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 25%
Psychology 10 17%
Social Sciences 7 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 5%
Arts and Humanities 2 3%
Other 5 8%
Unknown 17 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 79. 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 19 January 2024.
All research outputs
#547,245
of 25,721,020 outputs
Outputs from Drug Safety
#38
of 1,872 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,620
of 287,081 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Drug Safety
#8
of 815 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,721,020 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,872 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 287,081 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 815 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 99% of its contemporaries.