↓ Skip to main content

Fighting Misconceptions to Improve Compliance with Influenza Vaccination among Health Care Workers: An Educational Project

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, February 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (56th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
33 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
Fighting Misconceptions to Improve Compliance with Influenza Vaccination among Health Care Workers: An Educational Project
Published in
PLOS ONE, February 2012
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0030670
Pubmed ID
Authors

Carla R. Couto, Cláudio S. Pannuti, José P. Paz, Maria C. D. Fink, Alessandra A. Machado, Michela de Marchi, Clarisse M. Machado

Abstract

The compliance with influenza vaccination is poor among health care workers (HCWs) due to misconceptions about safety and effectiveness of influenza vaccine. We proposed an educational prospective study to demonstrate to HCWs that influenza vaccine is safe and that other respiratory viruses (RV) are the cause of respiratory symptoms in the months following influenza vaccination. 398 HCWs were surveyed for adverse events (AE) occurring within 48 h of vaccination. AE were reported by 30% of the HCWs. No severe AE was observed. A subset of 337 HCWs was followed up during four months, twice a week, for the detection of respiratory symptoms. RV was diagnosed by direct immunofluorescent assay (DFA) and real time PCR in symptomatic HCWs. Influenza A was detected in five episodes of respiratory symptoms (5.3%) and other RV in 26 (27.9%) episodes. The incidence density of influenza and other RV was 4.3 and 10.8 episodes per 100 HCW-month, respectively. The educational nature of the present study may persuade HCWs to develop a more positive attitude to influenza vaccination.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 33 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 21%
Student > Master 5 15%
Other 3 9%
Student > Bachelor 3 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 9%
Other 7 21%
Unknown 5 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 27%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 9%
Psychology 3 9%
Social Sciences 2 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Other 8 24%
Unknown 7 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 21 August 2018.
All research outputs
#7,412,654
of 22,662,201 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#87,960
of 193,504 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#71,995
of 247,832 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#1,214
of 3,376 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,662,201 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 193,504 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.0. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% 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 247,832 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3,376 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 56% of its contemporaries.