| Title |
Lessons Learned from Emergency Response Vaccination Efforts for Cholera, Typhoid, Yellow Fever, and Ebola - Volume 23, Supplement—December 2017 - Emerging Infectious Diseases journal - CDC
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Emerging Infectious Diseases, December 2017
|
| DOI | 10.3201/eid2313.170550 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jenny A. Walldorf, Kashmira A. Date, Nandini Sreenivasan, Jennifer B. Harris, Terri B. Hyde |
| Abstract |
Countries must be prepared to respond to public health threats associated with emergencies, such as natural disasters, sociopolitical conflicts, or uncontrolled disease outbreaks. Rapid vaccination of populations vulnerable to epidemic-prone vaccine-preventable diseases is a major component of emergency response. Emergency vaccination planning presents challenges, including how to predict resource needs, expand vaccine availability during global shortages, and address regulatory barriers to deliver new products. The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention supports countries to plan, implement, and evaluate emergency vaccination response. We describe work of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in collaboration with global partners to support emergency vaccination against cholera, typhoid, yellow fever, and Ebola, diseases for which a new vaccine or vaccine formulation has played a major role in response. Lessons learned will help countries prepare for future emergencies. Integration of vaccination with emergency response augments global health security through reducing disease burden, saving lives, and preventing spread across international borders. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 | 5 | 45% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 9% |
| Australia | 1 | 9% |
| Unknown | 4 | 36% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 9 | 82% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 9% |
| Scientists | 1 | 9% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 124 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 124 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 20 | 16% |
| Researcher | 18 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 8% |
| Other | 9 | 7% |
| Other | 18 | 15% |
| Unknown | 38 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 19 | 15% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 16 | 13% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 8 | 6% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 7 | 6% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 5 | 4% |
| Other | 24 | 19% |
| Unknown | 45 | 36% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 19 December 2022.
All research outputs
#2,920,472
of 25,026,088 outputs
Outputs from Emerging Infectious Diseases
#2,901
of 9,632 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#61,143
of 449,815 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Emerging Infectious Diseases
#61
of 159 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,026,088 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,632 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 45.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% 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 449,815 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 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 159 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 62% of its contemporaries.