↓ Skip to main content

Methodological Challenges to Economic Evaluations of Vaccines: Is a Common Approach Still Possible?

Overview of attention for article published in Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
70 Mendeley
Title
Methodological Challenges to Economic Evaluations of Vaccines: Is a Common Approach Still Possible?
Published in
Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, January 2016
DOI 10.1007/s40258-016-0224-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mark Jit, Raymond Hutubessy

Abstract

Economic evaluation of vaccination is a key tool to inform effective spending on vaccines. However, many evaluations have been criticised for failing to capture features of vaccines which are relevant to decision makers. These include broader societal benefits (such as improved educational achievement, economic growth and political stability), reduced health disparities, medical innovation, reduced hospital beds pressures, greater peace of mind and synergies in economic benefits with non-vaccine interventions. Also, the fiscal implications of vaccination programmes are not always made explicit. Alternative methodological frameworks have been proposed to better capture these benefits. However, any broadening of the methodology for economic evaluation must also involve evaluations of non-vaccine interventions, and hence may not always benefit vaccines given a fixed health-care budget. The scope of an economic evaluation must consider the budget from which vaccines are funded, and the decision-maker's stated aims for that spending to achieve.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 70 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Bangladesh 1 1%
Unknown 69 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 21%
Researcher 14 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 11%
Student > Bachelor 7 10%
Other 3 4%
Other 6 9%
Unknown 17 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 13 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 11%
Social Sciences 6 9%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 6%
Other 6 9%
Unknown 23 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 03 November 2021.
All research outputs
#6,966,011
of 22,842,950 outputs
Outputs from Applied Health Economics and Health Policy
#301
of 776 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#114,728
of 396,541 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Applied Health Economics and Health Policy
#6
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,842,950 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 776 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% 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 396,541 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 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 68% of its contemporaries.