↓ Skip to main content

Local cross-border disease surveillance and control: experiences from the Mekong Basin

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Research Notes, March 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (61st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
31 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
Local cross-border disease surveillance and control: experiences from the Mekong Basin
Published in
BMC Research Notes, March 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13104-015-1047-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Melinda Moore, David J Dausey

Abstract

The Mekong Basin Disease Surveillance cooperation (MBDS) is one of several sub-regional disease surveillance networks that have emerged in recent years as an approach to transnational cooperation for infectious disease prevention and control. Since 2003 MBDS has pioneered a unique model for local cross-border cooperation. This study examines stakeholders' perspectives of these MBDS experiences, based on a survey of local managers and semi-structured interviews with MBDS leaders and the central coordinator. Fifteen managers from 12 of 20 paired cross-border sites completed a written survey. They all monitor most or all of the 17 diseases agreed upon for MBDS surveillance information sharing. Fourteen agreed or strongly agreed with statements about the core MBDS values of cooperation, mutual trust, and transparency, and their own contributions to national and regional disease control (average score of 4.4 of 5.0). Respondents felt they implemented well to very well activities related to surveillance reporting (average scores 3.4 to 3.9 of 4.0), using computers for their work (3.9/4.0), and using surveillance data for action (3.8/4.0). Respondents reported that they did worst in implementing research (2.1/4.0) and somewhat poorly for local laboratory testing (2.9/4.0) and local coordination with cross-border counterparts (2.9/4.0), although all 15 maintain a list with contact information for these counterparts and many know their counterparts. Implementation of specified activities within their collective regional action plan was uneven across the cross-border sites. Most respondents reported positive lessons learned about local cooperation, information sharing and joint problem solving, based on trusting relationships with their cross-border counterparts. They recommend expansion of cross-border sites within MBDS and consideration of the cross-border cooperation model by other sub-regional networks. MBDS has over a decade of experience with its model of local cross-border cooperation in disease surveillance and control. Frontline managers have documented success with this model, strongly support it and recommend its expansion within and beyond the MBDS network. The MBDS cross-border cooperation model is standing the test of time as a solid approach to building and sustaining the public health capabilities needed for disease surveillance and control from the local to national and global levels.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Switzerland 1 3%
Unknown 30 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 19%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 13%
Student > Bachelor 3 10%
Student > Postgraduate 3 10%
Student > Master 3 10%
Other 6 19%
Unknown 6 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 26%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 6%
Psychology 2 6%
Other 5 16%
Unknown 6 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 29 November 2017.
All research outputs
#6,484,366
of 22,994,508 outputs
Outputs from BMC Research Notes
#1,009
of 4,284 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#76,140
of 263,306 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Research Notes
#25
of 73 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,994,508 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,284 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% 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 263,306 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 73 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 61% of its contemporaries.