↓ Skip to main content

Mandating influenza vaccinations for health care workers: analysing opportunities for policy change using Kingdon’s agenda setting framework

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
58 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
Mandating influenza vaccinations for health care workers: analysing opportunities for policy change using Kingdon’s agenda setting framework
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, September 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12913-016-1772-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Angela Jackson-Lee, Neil G. Barr, Glen E. Randall

Abstract

The consequences of annual influenza outbreaks are often underestimated by the general public. Influenza poses a serious public health threat around the world, particularly for the most vulnerable populations. Fortunately, vaccination can mitigate the negative effects of this common infectious disease. Although inoculating frontline health care workers (HCWs) helps minimize disease transmission, some HCWs continue to resist participating in voluntary immunization programs. A potential solution to this problem is government-mandated vaccination for HCWs; however, in practice, there are substantial barriers to the adoption of such policies. The purpose of this paper is to identify the likelihood of adopting a policy for mandatory immunization of HCWs in Ontario based on a historical review of barriers to the agenda setting process. Documents from secondary data sources were analysed using Kingdon's agenda setting framework of three converging streams leading to windows of opportunity for possible policy adoption. The problems, politics, and policies streams of Kingdon's framework have converged and diverged repeatedly over an extended period (policy windows have opened and closed several times). In each instance, a technically feasible solution was available. However, despite the evidence supporting the value of HCW immunization, alignment of the three agenda setting streams occurred for very short periods of time, during which, opposition lobby groups reacted, making the proposed solution less politically acceptable. Prior to the adoption of any new policies, issues must reach a government's decision agenda. Based on Kingdon's agenda setting framework, this only occurs when there is alignment of the problems, politics, and policies streams. Understanding this process makes it easier to predict the likelihood of a policy being adopted, and ultimately implemented. Such learning may be applied to policy issues in other jurisdictions. In the case of mandatory influenza vaccinations for HCWs in Ontario, it seems highly unlikely that a new policy will be adopted until perception of the problem's importance is sufficient to overcome the political opposition to implementing a solution and thus, create a window of opportunity that is open long enough to support change.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 58 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 58 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 21 36%
Student > Bachelor 12 21%
Researcher 4 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 7%
Student > Postgraduate 3 5%
Other 6 10%
Unknown 8 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 16%
Social Sciences 8 14%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 5%
Arts and Humanities 3 5%
Other 10 17%
Unknown 10 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 21 October 2016.
All research outputs
#7,384,395
of 8,547,393 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#2,921
of 3,159 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#204,265
of 250,156 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#121
of 133 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,547,393 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,159 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 250,156 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 133 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.