↓ Skip to main content

A novel approach to evaluating the UK childhood immunisation schedule: estimating the effective coverage vector across the entire vaccine programme

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Infectious Diseases, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
24 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
A novel approach to evaluating the UK childhood immunisation schedule: estimating the effective coverage vector across the entire vaccine programme
Published in
BMC Infectious Diseases, December 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12879-015-1299-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sonya Crowe, Martin Utley, Guy Walker, Jasmina Panovska-Griffiths, Peter Grove, Christina Pagel

Abstract

The availability of new vaccines can prompt policy makers to consider changes to the routine childhood immunisation programme in the UK. Alterations to one aspect of the schedule may have implications for other areas of the programme (e.g. adding more injections could reduce uptake of vaccines featuring later in the schedule). Colleagues at the Department of Health (DH) in the UK therefore wanted to know whether assessing the impact across the entire programme of a proposed change to the UK schedule could lead to different decisions than those made on the current case-by-case basis. This work is a first step towards addressing this question. A novel framework for estimating the effective coverage against all of the diseases within a vaccination programme was developed. The framework was applied to the current (August 2015) UK childhood immunisation programme, plausible extensions to it in the foreseeable future (introducing vaccination against Meningitis B and/or Hepatitis B) and a "what-if" scenario regarding a Hepatitis B vaccine scare that was developed in close collaboration with DH. Our applications of the framework demonstrate that a programme-view of hypothetical changes to the schedule is important. For example, we show how introducing Hepatitis B vaccination could negatively impact aspects of the current programme by reducing uptake of vaccines featuring later in the schedule, and illustrate that the potential benefits of introducing any new vaccine are susceptible to behaviour changes affecting uptake (e.g. a vaccine scare). We show how it may be useful to consider the potential benefits and scheduling needs of all vaccinations on the horizon of interest rather than those of an individual vaccine in isolation, e.g. how introducing Meningitis B vaccination could saturate the early (2-month) visit, thereby potentially restricting scheduling options for Hepatitis B immunisation should it be introduced to the programme in the future. Our results demonstrate the potential benefit of considering the programme-wide impact of changes to an immunisation schedule, and our framework is an important step in the development of a means for systematically doing so.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 24 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 29%
Researcher 4 17%
Student > Bachelor 4 17%
Professor 2 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 4%
Other 4 17%
Unknown 2 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 21%
Mathematics 2 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 8%
Other 3 13%
Unknown 3 13%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 30 December 2015.
All research outputs
#5,138,608
of 6,892,495 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#2,333
of 3,194 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#205,142
of 300,538 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#73
of 102 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 6,892,495 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,194 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.3. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% 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 300,538 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 102 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.