↓ Skip to main content

Patterns of Rotavirus Vaccine Uptake and Use in Privately-Insured US Infants, 2006–2010

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, September 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
34 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
Patterns of Rotavirus Vaccine Uptake and Use in Privately-Insured US Infants, 2006–2010
Published in
PLOS ONE, September 2013
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0073825
Pubmed ID
Authors

Catherine A. Panozzo, Sylvia Becker-Dreps, Virginia Pate, Michele Jonsson Funk, Til Stürmer, David J. Weber, M. Alan Brookhart

Abstract

Rotavirus vaccines are highly effective at preventing gastroenteritis in young children and are now universally recommended for infants in the US. We studied patterns of use of rotavirus vaccines among US infants with commercial insurance. We identified a large cohort of infants in the MarketScan Research Databases, 2006-2010. The analysis was restricted to infants residing in states without state-funded rotavirus vaccination programs. We computed summary statistics and used multivariable regression to assess the association between patient-, provider-, and ecologic-level variables of rotavirus vaccine receipt and series completion. Approximately 69% of 594,117 eligible infants received at least one dose of rotavirus vaccine from 2006-2010. Most infants received the rotavirus vaccines at the recommended ages, but more infants completed the series for monovalent rotavirus vaccine than pentavalent rotavirus vaccine or a mix of the vaccines (87% versus 79% versus 73%, P<0.001). In multivariable analyses, the strongest predictors of rotavirus vaccine series initiation and completion were receipt of the diphtheria, tetanus and acellular pertussis vaccine (Initiation: RR = 7.91, 95% CI = 7.69-8.13; Completion: RR = 1.26, 95% CI = 1.23-1.29), visiting a pediatrician versus family physician (Initiation: RR = 1.51, 95% CI = 1.49-1.52; Completion: RR = 1.13, 95% CI = 1.11-1.14), and living in a large metropolitan versus smaller metropolitan, urban, or rural area. We observed rapid diffusion of the rotavirus vaccine in routine practice; however, approximately one-fifth of infants did not receive at least one dose of vaccine as recently as 2010. Interventions to increase rotavirus vaccine coverage should consider targeting family physicians and encouraging completion of the vaccine series.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 3%
Unknown 33 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 18%
Researcher 6 18%
Student > Bachelor 3 9%
Other 3 9%
Student > Postgraduate 3 9%
Other 6 18%
Unknown 7 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 29%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 12%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 3%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 3%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 12 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 27 September 2013.
All research outputs
#14,761,535
of 22,723,682 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#123,289
of 193,985 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#105,673
of 179,663 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#2,951
of 4,892 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,723,682 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 193,985 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.1. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 179,663 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,892 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.