↓ Skip to main content

Healthcare providers’ knowledge, experience and challenges of reporting adverse events following immunisation: a qualitative study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, August 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
55 Mendeley
Title
Healthcare providers’ knowledge, experience and challenges of reporting adverse events following immunisation: a qualitative study
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, August 2013
DOI 10.1186/1472-6963-13-313
Pubmed ID
Authors

Adriana Parrella, Annette Braunack-Mayer, Michael Gold, Helen Marshall, Peter Baghurst

Abstract

Healthcare provider spontaneous reporting of suspected adverse events following immunisation (AEFI) is central to monitoring post-licensure vaccine safety, but little is known about how healthcare professionals recognise and report to surveillance systems. The aim of this study was explore the knowledge, experience and attitudes of medical and nursing professionals towards detecting and reporting AEFI.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Canada 1 2%
Unknown 53 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 20 36%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 15%
Student > Bachelor 7 13%
Unspecified 6 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 5%
Other 11 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 38%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 20%
Unspecified 8 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 9%
Social Sciences 4 7%
Other 6 11%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 22 February 2017.
All research outputs
#6,707,023
of 12,372,945 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#2,285
of 4,083 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#61,816
of 150,922 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#8
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,372,945 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,083 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 150,922 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 57% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.