↓ Skip to main content

Did the New Italian Law on Mandatory Vaccines Affect Adverse Event Following Immunization’s Reporting? A Pharmacovigilance Study in Southern Italy

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Pharmacology, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (51st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
42 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
Did the New Italian Law on Mandatory Vaccines Affect Adverse Event Following Immunization’s Reporting? A Pharmacovigilance Study in Southern Italy
Published in
Frontiers in Pharmacology, September 2018
DOI 10.3389/fphar.2018.01003
Pubmed ID
Authors

Cristina Scavone, Concetta Rafaniello, Simona Brusco, Michele Bertini, Enrica Menditto, Valentina Orlando, Ugo Trama, Liberata Sportiello, Francesco Rossi, Annalisa Capuano

Abstract

Despite the well-recognized role of vaccines, coverage is far from optimal especially in children, representing a growing concern also in Italy. In order to reverse this emergency, the Italian Ministry approved in July 2017 the Law 119/2017, which renders mandatory and free of charge 10 vaccinations for patients aged 0-16. We aim to investigate the effects of the new Law 119/2017 on the reporting of adverse events following immunization related to mandatory vaccines into the Italian Pharmacovigilance database (Rete Nazionale di Farmacovigilanza - RNF). Therefore, we analyzed the spontaneous reports of suspected adverse events following immunization recorded in Campania Region (South of Italy) from December 1, 2016, to March 31, 2018. During the study period, 69 reports, covering 179 AEFIs, related to mandatory vaccines were sent to Campania Pharmacovigilance Regional Center. A substantial increase in AEFIs reporting was observed after the adoption of Law 119/2017. Out of 69 reports, 62% reported AEFIs that were considered as not serious and 78% had a favorable outcome. Out of 179 AEFIs, more than half referred to the following SOC: "general disorders and administration site conditions," "nervous system disorders," and "psychiatric disorders." The highest number of reports came from patient/citizen. After the adoption of the Law 119/2017, there was an increase in the number of reports (18 before the adoption of the Law vs. 51 after). According to reported AEFIs during the entire period, no worrying safety data have emerged. In our opinion, the increase in the number of AEFIs' reports should be related to the increase in vaccination coverage as well as to the intense debate that has followed the new Law. In this context, the continuous monitoring of vaccine safety and the fully implementation of vaccine-vigilance programs play a key role in achieving higher confidence in immunization programs and optimal vaccination coverage rate.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 42 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 29%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 12%
Student > Postgraduate 4 10%
Student > Bachelor 3 7%
Librarian 3 7%
Other 3 7%
Unknown 12 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 24%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 5%
Arts and Humanities 2 5%
Engineering 2 5%
Other 4 10%
Unknown 16 38%
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 17 December 2021.
All research outputs
#12,877,225
of 22,711,242 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Pharmacology
#3,545
of 15,939 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#158,857
of 334,377 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Pharmacology
#93
of 396 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,711,242 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 15,939 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 334,377 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 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 396 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.