| Title |
Australia’s influenza pandemic preparedness plans: an analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Public Health Policy, November 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1057/s41271-017-0109-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ralf Itzwerth, Aye Moa, C. Raina MacIntyre |
| Abstract |
We analysed Australian plans issued by the public sector and current at the time of the last human pandemic in 2009. They came from various levels of governance, and offered guidance in key domains. Using 13 established criteria, we rated 10 plans (national, state, and territorial) for their usefulness to guide health and medical intervention, business continuity, and crisis communication, plus consideration of at-risk populations. The intended end-user of most plans was not clear, whether hospital manager, health worker, or policy maker. Scores ranged from 8 to 29 of a maximum possible of 39, with many inconsistencies between plans. Health system-related issues were better addressed than critical infrastructure and essential systems resilience. The needs of Indigenous populations and use of pneumococcal vaccination and antibiotics were rarely considered in plans. Pandemic response would be more effective if plans were standardised, clear, and were to include overlooked dimensions of a pandemic's impact as well as guidance for specified end-users. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 57 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 16 | 28% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 4% |
| France | 2 | 4% |
| Turkey | 1 | 2% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 2% |
| Canada | 1 | 2% |
| Curaçao | 1 | 2% |
| Colombia | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 32 | 56% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 43 | 75% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 7 | 12% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 3 | 5% |
| Scientists | 3 | 5% |
| Unknown | 1 | 2% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 80 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 80 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 14 | 18% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 10% |
| Researcher | 7 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 9% |
| Lecturer | 5 | 6% |
| Other | 10 | 13% |
| Unknown | 29 | 36% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 15% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 9 | 11% |
| Social Sciences | 6 | 8% |
| Computer Science | 3 | 4% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 12 | 15% |
| Unknown | 35 | 44% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 33. 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 January 2022.
All research outputs
#1,239,760
of 25,773,273 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Public Health Policy
#54
of 821 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,376
of 448,781 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Public Health Policy
#3
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,773,273 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 821 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 448,781 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 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.