↓ Skip to main content

Vaccine uptake in the Irish Travelling community: an audit of general practice records

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Public Health, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
policy
1 policy source
twitter
8 tweeters

Readers on

mendeley
8 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
Vaccine uptake in the Irish Travelling community: an audit of general practice records
Published in
Journal of Public Health, September 2016
DOI 10.1093/pubmed/fdw088
Pubmed ID
Authors

K. C. Dixon, R. Mullis, T. Blumenfeld

Abstract

Compared to the general population, the Traveller community has substantial health inequalities. Vaccination coverage in Traveller children is estimated to be low and Travellers are at higher risk of vaccine-preventable diseases due to their social circumstances. Audit of vaccination history of Traveller (n = 214) and non-Traveller (n = 776) children registered at a general practice in England. The Green Book childhood immunization schedule was used as a reference standard. There was significantly lower coverage for Traveller children compared to non-Traveller children for all vaccinations in the routine childhood immunization schedule. The percentage of children completing the schedule at all time points was significantly lower in the Traveller community. Traveller communities have significantly lower uptake of vaccinations, and therefore Travellers' children should be targeted by general practitioners for catch-up vaccination to improve outcomes for individuals and local herd immunity.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 8 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 8 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 2 25%
Researcher 2 25%
Unspecified 2 25%
Other 1 13%
Student > Master 1 13%
Other 0 0%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 2 25%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 25%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 13%
Social Sciences 1 13%
Other 1 13%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 31. 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 09 January 2019.
All research outputs
#521,568
of 13,194,193 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Public Health
#119
of 1,703 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,110
of 265,622 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Public Health
#9
of 99 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,194,193 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,703 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 265,622 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 99 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.