↓ Skip to main content

Whom and Where Are We Not Vaccinating? Coverage after the Introduction of a New Conjugate Vaccine against Group A Meningococcus in Niger in 2010

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

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
48 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
Whom and Where Are We Not Vaccinating? Coverage after the Introduction of a New Conjugate Vaccine against Group A Meningococcus in Niger in 2010
Published in
PLOS ONE, January 2012
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0029116
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sung Hye Kim, Lorenzo Pezzoli, Harouna Yacouba, Tiekoura Coulibaly, Mamoudou H. Djingarey, William A. Perea, Thomas F. Wierzba

Abstract

MenAfriVac is a new conjugate vaccine against Neisseria meningitidis serogroup A developed for the African "meningitis belt". In Niger, the first two phases of the MenAfriVac introduction campaign were conducted targeting 3,135,942 individuals aged 1 to 29 years in the regions of Tillabéri, Niamey, and Dosso, in September and December 2010. We evaluated the campaign and determined which sub-populations or areas had low levels of vaccination coverage in the regions of Tillabéri and Niamey. After Phase I, conducted in the Filingué district, we estimated coverage using a 30×15 cluster-sampling survey and nested lot quality assurance (LQA) analysis in the clustered samples to identify which subpopulations (defined by age 1-14/15-29 and sex) had unacceptable vaccination coverage (<70%). After Phase II, we used Clustered Lot Quality Assurance Sampling (CLQAS) to assess if any of eight districts in Niamey and Tillabéri had unacceptable vaccination coverage (<75%) and estimated overall coverage. Estimated vaccination coverage was 77.4% (95%CI: 84.6-70.2) as documented by vaccination cards and 85.5% (95% CI: 79.7-91.2) considering verbal history of vaccination for Phase I; 81.5% (95%CI: 86.1-77.0) by card and 93.4% (95% CI: 91.0-95.9) by verbal history for Phase II. Based on vaccination cards, in Filingué, we identified both the male and female adult (age 15-29) subpopulations as not reaching 70% coverage; and we identified three (one in Tillabéri and two in Niamey) out of eight districts as not reaching 75% coverage confirmed by card. Combined use of LQA and cluster sampling was useful to estimate vaccination coverage and to identify pockets with unacceptable levels of coverage (adult population and three districts). Although overall vaccination coverage was satisfactory, we recommend continuing vaccination in the areas or sub-populations with low coverage and reinforcing the social mobilization of the adult population.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 48 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 4%
Unknown 46 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 25%
Student > Master 7 15%
Student > Bachelor 6 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 13%
Other 2 4%
Other 6 13%
Unknown 9 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 42%
Social Sciences 4 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Arts and Humanities 1 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Other 7 15%
Unknown 13 27%
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 09 January 2014.
All research outputs
#7,819,929
of 25,504,429 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#105,589
of 222,346 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#66,348
of 252,220 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#1,060
of 3,347 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,504,429 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 222,346 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% 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 252,220 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 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3,347 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 68% of its contemporaries.