↓ Skip to main content

Influenza vaccination in patients with asthma: why is the uptake so low?

Overview of attention for article published in British Journal of General Practice, May 2007
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 (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
24 X users

Readers on

mendeley
50 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
Influenza vaccination in patients with asthma: why is the uptake so low?
Published in
British Journal of General Practice, May 2007
Pubmed ID
Authors

Helen Keenan, John Campbell, Philip H Evans

Abstract

Patients with asthma are particularly susceptible to serious complications from influenza. The Chief Medical Officer recommends annual influenza vaccination for adult patients with asthma. The uptake of influenza vaccination by patients with asthma is only 40% and, unlike other high-risk groups, has failed to increase in recent years. To investigate the contribution of sociodemographic factors, asthma morbidity, and health beliefs to influenza vaccination uptake in patients with asthma. Cross-sectional questionnaire study. Single urban British general practice, Exeter, UK. A questionnaire survey was sent to adult patients with asthma. Participants were aged 16-65 years, were receiving beta(2) agonists and inhaled steroids, and had been invited for influenza vaccination in September 2003. Data were examined using univariate analysis and logistic regression. A total of 136/204 (66.7%) patients responded to the survey. Influenza vaccination uptake in the study population was 40%. Younger patients were less likely to have undergone vaccination than older patients. There was no difference in vaccination uptake rates between groups of patients defined by other sociodemographic factors. Asthma morbidity was similar in vaccinated and non-vaccinated groups of patients. Vaccinated individuals had a greater belief in the efficacy of the vaccination and medical advice regarding the vaccination, and felt more susceptible to influenza and its complications when compared with non-vaccinated individuals. A fear of side-effects was associated with declining the invitation for vaccination. These health beliefs were the only independent predictors of uptake of influenza vaccination among this group of patients with asthma. Improving vaccination uptake in patients with asthma is unlikely unless individual health beliefs are taken into account.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 24 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 50 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 50 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 18%
Student > Bachelor 7 14%
Researcher 6 12%
Student > Master 5 10%
Other 3 6%
Other 11 22%
Unknown 9 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 38%
Psychology 5 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 8%
Social Sciences 2 4%
Other 5 10%
Unknown 11 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. 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 08 December 2019.
All research outputs
#2,151,389
of 25,756,911 outputs
Outputs from British Journal of General Practice
#1,035
of 4,936 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,782
of 87,376 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Journal of General Practice
#3
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,756,911 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,936 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 87,376 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.