↓ Skip to main content

A cost-benefit analysis of the immunisation of children against respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) using the English Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) data set

Overview of attention for article published in HEPAC Health Economics in Prevention and Care, January 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
52 Mendeley
Title
A cost-benefit analysis of the immunisation of children against respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) using the English Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) data set
Published in
HEPAC Health Economics in Prevention and Care, January 2015
DOI 10.1007/s10198-014-0662-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gareth Thomas

Abstract

Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is a common cause of respiratory infection that is highly prevalent in infants, particularly those with underlying medical conditions. Severe cases of RSV require hospitalisation as well as admission to intensive care and may even result in death. The objective of the study was to measure the net benefits that could arise from an immunisation programme of infants that may well eradicate RSV to a high degree and save the direct and indirect medical care costs from hospitalisation, morbidity and the gain from potential life-time earnings by reducing the probability of mortality. In this context, the majority of existing empirical investigations are based on data from clinical trials, and where relevant facts are not available, a series of strong assumptions is derived from the published literature, whereas in this study, for the first time, the hospital episode statistics database is used to calculate the cost-benefit ratios. The methodology of the analysis adopts a cost-benefit approach to assess the impact of the immunisation and whether it is beneficial to society. The underlying assumptions of the basic model are assessed by adopting a sensitivity analysis. The results show that a number of categories are cost-effective with the use of the passive drug, which means benefits by raising the life expectancy and quality as well as reducing the resource burden on society.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 52 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 6 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 12%
Student > Bachelor 6 12%
Researcher 5 10%
Student > Master 4 8%
Other 10 19%
Unknown 15 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 40%
Social Sciences 4 8%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 4%
Mathematics 1 2%
Other 6 12%
Unknown 15 29%
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 09 January 2015.
All research outputs
#16,046,765
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from HEPAC Health Economics in Prevention and Care
#856
of 1,303 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#199,414
of 359,746 outputs
Outputs of similar age from HEPAC Health Economics in Prevention and Care
#13
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,303 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.7. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% 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 359,746 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.