| Title |
The broader economic impact of vaccination: reviewing and appraising the strength of evidence
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medicine, September 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12916-015-0446-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Mark Jit, Raymond Hutubessy, May Ee Png, Neisha Sundaram, Jananie Audimulam, Safiyah Salim, Joanne Yoong |
| Abstract |
Microeconomic evaluations of public health programmes such as immunisation typically only consider direct health benefits and medical cost savings. Broader economic benefits around childhood development, household behaviour, and macro-economic indicators are increasingly important, but the evidence linking immunization to such benefits is unclear. A conceptual framework of pathways between immunisation and its proposed broader economic benefits was developed through expert consultation. Relevant articles were obtained from previous reviews, snowballing, and expert consultation. Articles were associated with one of the pathways and quality assessed using modified Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria. We found 20 studies directly relevant to one or more pathways. Evidence of moderate quality from experimental and observational studies was found for benefits due to immunisation in improved childhood physical development, educational outcomes, and equity in distribution of health gains. Only modelling evidence or evidence outside the immunization field supports extrapolating these benefits to household economic behaviour and macro-economic indicators. Innovative use of experimental and observational study designs is needed to fill evidence gaps around key pathways between immunisation and many of its proposed economic benefits. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 25% |
| United States | 1 | 13% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 13% |
| India | 1 | 13% |
| Unknown | 3 | 38% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 38% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 13% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 184 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Switzerland | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 183 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 32 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 25 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 22 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 12 | 7% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 9 | 5% |
| Other | 28 | 15% |
| Unknown | 56 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 36 | 20% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 20 | 11% |
| Social Sciences | 14 | 8% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 9 | 5% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 8 | 4% |
| Other | 31 | 17% |
| Unknown | 66 | 36% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 24. 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 13 June 2021.
All research outputs
#1,413,625
of 23,646,998 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#990
of 3,575 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,889
of 268,023 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#35
of 103 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,646,998 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,575 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 44.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% 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 268,023 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 103 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 66% of its contemporaries.