↓ Skip to main content

A novel approach to evaluating the UK childhood immunisation schedule: estimating the effective coverage vector across the entire vaccine programme

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Infectious Diseases, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (79th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
44 Mendeley
Title
A novel approach to evaluating the UK childhood immunisation schedule: estimating the effective coverage vector across the entire vaccine programme
Published in
BMC Infectious Diseases, December 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12879-015-1299-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sonya Crowe, Martin Utley, Guy Walker, Jasmina Panovska-Griffiths, Peter Grove, Christina Pagel

Abstract

The availability of new vaccines can prompt policy makers to consider changes to the routine childhood immunisation programme in the UK. Alterations to one aspect of the schedule may have implications for other areas of the programme (e.g. adding more injections could reduce uptake of vaccines featuring later in the schedule). Colleagues at the Department of Health (DH) in the UK therefore wanted to know whether assessing the impact across the entire programme of a proposed change to the UK schedule could lead to different decisions than those made on the current case-by-case basis. This work is a first step towards addressing this question. A novel framework for estimating the effective coverage against all of the diseases within a vaccination programme was developed. The framework was applied to the current (August 2015) UK childhood immunisation programme, plausible extensions to it in the foreseeable future (introducing vaccination against Meningitis B and/or Hepatitis B) and a "what-if" scenario regarding a Hepatitis B vaccine scare that was developed in close collaboration with DH. Our applications of the framework demonstrate that a programme-view of hypothetical changes to the schedule is important. For example, we show how introducing Hepatitis B vaccination could negatively impact aspects of the current programme by reducing uptake of vaccines featuring later in the schedule, and illustrate that the potential benefits of introducing any new vaccine are susceptible to behaviour changes affecting uptake (e.g. a vaccine scare). We show how it may be useful to consider the potential benefits and scheduling needs of all vaccinations on the horizon of interest rather than those of an individual vaccine in isolation, e.g. how introducing Meningitis B vaccination could saturate the early (2-month) visit, thereby potentially restricting scheduling options for Hepatitis B immunisation should it be introduced to the programme in the future. Our results demonstrate the potential benefit of considering the programme-wide impact of changes to an immunisation schedule, and our framework is an important step in the development of a means for systematically doing so.

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 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 44 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 18%
Student > Bachelor 8 18%
Researcher 5 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 7%
Other 2 5%
Other 6 14%
Unknown 12 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 5%
Mathematics 2 5%
Other 6 14%
Unknown 15 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 December 2022.
All research outputs
#5,880,171
of 22,788,370 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#1,740
of 7,671 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#93,378
of 392,579 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#23
of 111 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,788,370 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,671 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 392,579 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 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 111 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.