↓ Skip to main content

Microneedle technology for immunisation: Perception, acceptability and suitability for paediatric use

Overview of attention for article published in Vaccine, December 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 (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
40 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
76 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
Microneedle technology for immunisation: Perception, acceptability and suitability for paediatric use
Published in
Vaccine, December 2015
DOI 10.1016/j.vaccine.2015.12.002
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sarah Marshall, Laura J. Sahm, Anne C. Moore

Abstract

To examine published research which explores the perception and acceptability of microneedle technology for immunisation and to investigate the suitability of this technology for paediatric use. A series of keywords and their synonyms were combined in various combinations and permutations using Boolean operators to sequentially search four databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Embase and CINAHL). Following removal of duplications and irrelevant results, 12 research articles were included in the final literature review. The opinions of patients, parents, children and healthcare professionals (HCP) were collated. A positive perception and a high level of acceptability predominated. Microneedle technology research has been focussed on demonstrating efficacy with minimal focus on determining HCP/public perception and acceptability for paediatric use, exemplified by the paucity of studies presented in this review. Commercial viability will depend on HCP/public acceptability of microneedle technology. An effort must be made to identify the barriers to acceptance and to overcome them by increasing awareness and education in stakeholder groups pertaining to the paediatric population.

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 76 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Malaysia 1 1%
Unknown 74 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 18%
Student > Master 13 17%
Researcher 8 11%
Student > Bachelor 6 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 7%
Other 13 17%
Unknown 17 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 15 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 14 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 5%
Chemistry 3 4%
Materials Science 3 4%
Other 15 20%
Unknown 22 29%
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 10 November 2021.
All research outputs
#7,942,193
of 25,387,189 outputs
Outputs from Vaccine
#7,812
of 16,489 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#107,879
of 375,612 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Vaccine
#67
of 159 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,387,189 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 16,489 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% 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 375,612 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 159 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 57% of its contemporaries.