↓ Skip to main content

Face to face interventions for informing or educating parents about early childhood vaccination

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2013
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 (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
25 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages
video
1 video uploader

Citations

dimensions_citation
68 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
334 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
Face to face interventions for informing or educating parents about early childhood vaccination
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010038.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jessica Kaufman, Anneliese Synnot, Rebecca Ryan, Sophie Hill, Dell Horey, Natalie Willis, Vivian Lin, Priscilla Robinson

Abstract

Childhood vaccination (also described as immunisation) is an important and effective way to reduce childhood illness and death. However, there are many children who do not receive the recommended vaccines because their parents do not know why vaccination is important, do not understand how, where or when to get their children vaccinated, disagree with vaccination as a public health measure, or have concerns about vaccine safety.Face to face interventions to inform or educate parents about routine childhood vaccination may improve vaccination rates and parental knowledge or understanding of vaccination. Such interventions may describe or explain the practical and logistical factors associated with vaccination, and enable parents to understand the meaning and relevance of vaccination for their family or community.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 25 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 334 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 333 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 1 <1%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 <1%
Unspecified 1 <1%
Unknown 331 99%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 1 <1%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 <1%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 <1%
Unknown 331 99%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. 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 01 January 2017.
All research outputs
#784,559
of 13,309,606 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,519
of 10,550 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,247
of 151,109 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#22
of 128 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,309,606 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,550 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% 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 151,109 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 128 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.