↓ Skip to main content

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the direct epidemiological and economic effects of seasonal influenza vaccination on healthcare workers

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (83rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
3 policy sources
twitter
8 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
83 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
192 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A systematic review and meta-analysis of the direct epidemiological and economic effects of seasonal influenza vaccination on healthcare workers
Published in
PLOS ONE, June 2018
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0198685
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chisato Imai, Michiko Toizumi, Lisa Hall, Stephen Lambert, Kate Halton, Katharina Merollini

Abstract

Influenza vaccination is a commonly used intervention to prevent influenza infection in healthcare workers (HCWs) and onward transmission to other staff and patients. We undertook a systematic review to synthesize the latest evidence of the direct epidemiological and economic effectiveness of seasonal influenza vaccination among HCW. We conducted a systematic search of MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from 1980 through January 2018. All studies comparing vaccinated and non-vaccinated (i.e. placebo or non-intervention) groups of HCWs were included. Research articles that focused on only patient-related outcomes or monovalent A(H1N1)pdm09 vaccines were excluded. Two reviewers independently selected articles and extracted data. Pooled-analyses were conducted on morbidity outcomes including laboratory-confirmed influenza, influenza-like illnesses (ILI), and absenteeism. Economic studies were summarized for the characteristics of methods and findings. Thirteen articles met eligibility criteria: three articles were randomized controlled studies and ten were cohort studies. Pooled results showed a significant effect on laboratory-confirmed influenza incidence but not ILI. While the overall incidence of absenteeism was not changed by vaccine, ILI absenteeism was significantly reduced. The duration of absenteeism was also shortened by vaccination. All published economic evaluations consistently found that the immunization of HCW was cost saving based on crude estimates of avoided absenteeism by vaccination. No studies, however, comprehensively evaluated both health outcomes and costs of vaccination programs to examine cost-effectiveness. Our findings reinforced the influenza vaccine effects in reducing infection incidence and length of absenteeism. A better understanding of the incidence of absenteeism and comprehensive economic program evaluations are required to ensure the best possible management of ill HCWs and the investment in HCW immunization in increasingly constrained financial environments. These steps are fundamental to establish sustainability and cost-effectiveness of vaccination programs and underpin HCW immunization policy.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 192 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 192 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 26 14%
Researcher 19 10%
Other 17 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 9%
Student > Master 14 7%
Other 47 24%
Unknown 52 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 67 35%
Nursing and Health Professions 19 10%
Social Sciences 6 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 2%
Engineering 4 2%
Other 25 13%
Unknown 67 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 06 June 2023.
All research outputs
#2,787,894
of 25,292,378 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#34,433
of 219,440 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#54,878
of 336,243 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#624
of 3,263 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,292,378 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 219,440 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 336,243 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3,263 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.