↓ Skip to main content

Comparing Methods of Assessing Dog Rabies Vaccination Coverage in Rural and Urban Communities in Tanzania

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Veterinary Science, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (79th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
13 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
97 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
Comparing Methods of Assessing Dog Rabies Vaccination Coverage in Rural and Urban Communities in Tanzania
Published in
Frontiers in Veterinary Science, March 2017
DOI 10.3389/fvets.2017.00033
Pubmed ID
Authors

Maganga Sambo, Paul C. D. Johnson, Karen Hotopp, Joel Changalucha, Sarah Cleaveland, Rudovick Kazwala, Tiziana Lembo, Ahmed Lugelo, Kennedy Lushasi, Mathew Maziku, Eberhard Mbunda, Zacharia Mtema, Lwitiko Sikana, Sunny E. Townsend, Katie Hampson

Abstract

Rabies can be eliminated by achieving comprehensive coverage of 70% of domestic dogs during annual mass vaccination campaigns. Estimates of vaccination coverage are, therefore, required to evaluate and manage mass dog vaccination programs; however, there is no specific guidance for the most accurate and efficient methods for estimating coverage in different settings. Here, we compare post-vaccination transects, school-based surveys, and household surveys across 28 districts in southeast Tanzania and Pemba island covering rural, urban, coastal and inland settings, and a range of different livelihoods and religious backgrounds. These approaches were explored in detail in a single district in northwest Tanzania (Serengeti), where their performance was compared with a complete dog population census that also recorded dog vaccination status. Post-vaccination transects involved counting marked (vaccinated) and unmarked (unvaccinated) dogs immediately after campaigns in 2,155 villages (24,721 dogs counted). School-based surveys were administered to 8,587 primary school pupils each representing a unique household, in 119 randomly selected schools approximately 2 months after campaigns. Household surveys were conducted in 160 randomly selected villages (4,488 households) in July/August 2011. Costs to implement these coverage assessments were $12.01, $66.12, and $155.70 per village for post-vaccination transects, school-based, and household surveys, respectively. Simulations were performed to assess the effect of sampling on the precision of coverage estimation. The sampling effort required to obtain reasonably precise estimates of coverage from household surveys is generally very high and probably prohibitively expensive for routine monitoring across large areas, particularly in communities with high human to dog ratios. School-based surveys partially overcame sampling constraints, however, were also costly to obtain reasonably precise estimates of coverage. Post-vaccination transects provided precise and timely estimates of community-level coverage that could be used to troubleshoot the performance of campaigns across large areas. However, transects typically overestimated coverage by around 10%, which therefore needs consideration when evaluating the impacts of campaigns. We discuss the advantages and disadvantages of these different methods and make recommendations for how vaccination campaigns can be better monitored and managed at different stages of rabies control and elimination programs.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 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 97 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Unknown 96 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 20 21%
Student > Master 18 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 12%
Other 9 9%
Student > Bachelor 7 7%
Other 12 12%
Unknown 19 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 30 31%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 11%
Social Sciences 3 3%
Environmental Science 3 3%
Other 12 12%
Unknown 27 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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 28 September 2020.
All research outputs
#1,774,496
of 22,955,959 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Veterinary Science
#314
of 6,288 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#36,954
of 307,961 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Veterinary Science
#11
of 54 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,955,959 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,288 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 307,961 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 54 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.