| Title |
Cost Effectiveness of Influenza Vaccination in Older Adults
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PharmacoEconomics, September 2012
|
| DOI | 10.2165/00019053-200927060-00001 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Anthony T. Newall, Heath Kelly, Stuart Harsley, Paul A. Scuffham |
| Abstract |
Several recent studies have assessed the benefits of extending influenza vaccination programmes, which are currently targeted primarily at those aged over 65 years, to those aged 50-64 years. We identified and reviewed all cost-effectiveness studies of influenza vaccination in those aged 50-64 years published before July 2008. While the studies suggest that vaccination in this age-group is likely to be cost effective, these results were dependent on several key assumptions. The estimates of serious outcomes due to influenza and the estimates of vaccine effectiveness (VE) against these outcomes were found to have the most influence on cost effectiveness. However, due to factors including mismatches between the measure of VE and the outcome under consideration, as well as various other data limitations, there is significant uncertainty around these key assumptions that was not well explored. There was a failure in some studies to report fundamental inputs such as discount rates. Overall, there was a general lack of transparency in the studies and, consequently, the conclusions around the cost effectiveness of influenza vaccine in those aged 50-64 years must be interpreted with caution. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 5% |
| Australia | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 39 | 93% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 12 | 29% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 17% |
| Professor | 3 | 7% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 6 | 14% |
| Unknown | 9 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 16 | 38% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 10% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 4 | 10% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 5% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 3 | 7% |
| Unknown | 12 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 22 November 2021.
All research outputs
#5,447,195
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from PharmacoEconomics
#570
of 1,992 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,056
of 189,085 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PharmacoEconomics
#106
of 548 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,992 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% 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 189,085 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 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 548 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.