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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Can Digital Tools Be Used for Improving Immunization Programs?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Public Health, March 2016
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fpubh.2016.00036 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Alberto E. Tozzi, Francesco Gesualdo, Angelo D’Ambrosio, Elisabetta Pandolfi, Eleonora Agricola, Pierluigi Lopalco |
| Abstract |
In order to successfully control and eliminate vaccine-preventable infectious diseases, an appropriate vaccine coverage has to be achieved and maintained. This task requires a high level of effort as it may be compromised by a number of barriers. Public health agencies have issued specific recommendations to address these barriers and therefore improve immunization programs. In the present review, we characterize issues and challenges of immunization programs for which digital tools are a potential solution. In particular, we explore previously published research on the use of digital tools in the following vaccine-related areas: immunization registries, dose tracking, and decision support systems; vaccine-preventable diseases surveillance; surveillance of adverse events following immunizations; vaccine confidence monitoring; and delivery of information on vaccines to the public. Subsequently, we analyze the limits of the use of digital tools in such contexts and envision future possibilities and challenges. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Korea, Democratic People's Republic of | 1 | 10% |
| United States | 1 | 10% |
| Denmark | 1 | 10% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 10% |
| Sweden | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 5 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 60% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 4 | 40% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 122 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Portugal | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 121 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 26 | 21% |
| Researcher | 12 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 9 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 5% |
| Other | 21 | 17% |
| Unknown | 37 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 24 | 20% |
| Computer Science | 13 | 11% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 10 | 8% |
| Social Sciences | 7 | 6% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 4% |
| Other | 21 | 17% |
| Unknown | 42 | 34% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 27 October 2020.
All research outputs
#2,135,092
of 24,395,432 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Public Health
#925
of 12,501 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#34,289
of 304,265 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Public Health
#14
of 75 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,395,432 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,501 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 304,265 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 75 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.