↓ Skip to main content

A case study using the United Republic of Tanzania: costing nationwide HPV vaccine delivery using the WHO Cervical Cancer Prevention and Control Costing Tool

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, November 2012
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 (93rd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
policy
1 policy source
twitter
8 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
49 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
261 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
A case study using the United Republic of Tanzania: costing nationwide HPV vaccine delivery using the WHO Cervical Cancer Prevention and Control Costing Tool
Published in
BMC Medicine, November 2012
DOI 10.1186/1741-7015-10-136
Pubmed ID
Authors

Raymond Hutubessy, Ann Levin, Susan Wang, Winthrop Morgan, Mariam Ally, Theopista John, Nathalie Broutet

Abstract

The purpose, methods, data sources and assumptions behind the World Health Organization (WHO) Cervical Cancer Prevention and Control Costing (C4P) tool that was developed to assist low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) with planning and costing their nationwide human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination program are presented. Tanzania is presented as a case study where the WHO C4P tool was used to cost and plan the roll-out of HPV vaccines nationwide as part of the national comprehensive cervical cancer prevention and control strategy.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 261 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Mauritius 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Unknown 257 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 51 20%
Student > Master 49 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 27 10%
Student > Postgraduate 18 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 18 7%
Other 39 15%
Unknown 59 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 74 28%
Nursing and Health Professions 27 10%
Social Sciences 25 10%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 14 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 3%
Other 36 14%
Unknown 76 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 October 2019.
All research outputs
#1,745,741
of 23,924,386 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#1,229
of 3,616 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,410
of 181,203 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#22
of 59 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,924,386 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 3,616 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 44.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% 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 181,203 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 59 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 64% of its contemporaries.