| Title |
The use of eHealth with immunizations: An overview of systematic reviews
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Vaccine, July 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1016/j.vaccine.2018.06.076 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Elsy Maria Dumit, David Novillo-Ortiz, Marcela Contreras, Martha Velandia, M Carolina Danovaro-Holliday |
| Abstract |
eHealth interventions may help increase vaccination uptake and health literacy related to immunization and improve immunization program efficiency. To see where and how eHealth technologies have had a positive impact on immunization practices-using eHealth strategies to increase vaccination uptake, improve immunization program efficiency and advance heath literacy related to immunizations. An overview of systematic reviews was conducted, searching PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Science for systematic reviews published through August 2017 for eHealth and immunizations (using pre-determined concepts for each). Two independent reviewers selected studies based on a priori criteria; disagreement was resolved by consensus. The quality of the included studies was evaluated using the Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR). The primary search identified 198 results. After eliminating duplicates 158 remained. Upon applying the a priori set criteria to these, six articles were left to analyze. Four articles showed a positive relationship (a demonstrated benefit, improvement, increase in vaccination uptake, etc. when using eHealth technologies for immunization), one showed a promising relation / with potential, and one showed unknown effects as it focused on the difficulty of analyzing cost-benefits of immunization information systems (IIS). The review leads to a recommendation of using eHealth technologies to encourage immunizations and increase vaccination adherence and uptake and to continue assessing and documenting the use of eHealth for immunization. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 22 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 States | 4 | 18% |
| Argentina | 4 | 18% |
| Spain | 2 | 9% |
| Mexico | 1 | 5% |
| Australia | 1 | 5% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 5% |
| United Arab Emirates | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 8 | 36% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 19 | 86% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 14% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 168 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 168 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 29 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 18 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 12 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 12 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 12 | 7% |
| Other | 39 | 23% |
| Unknown | 46 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 27 | 16% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 20 | 12% |
| Social Sciences | 18 | 11% |
| Computer Science | 11 | 7% |
| Psychology | 7 | 4% |
| Other | 31 | 18% |
| Unknown | 54 | 32% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 07 January 2019.
All research outputs
#2,660,705
of 25,758,695 outputs
Outputs from Vaccine
#2,225
of 16,623 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#51,902
of 342,117 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Vaccine
#37
of 197 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,758,695 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 16,623 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 342,117 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 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 197 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.