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 |
Cost-effectiveness of pharmaceutical strategies to prevent respiratory syncytial virus disease in young children: a decision-support model for use in low-income and middle-income countries
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medicine, April 2023
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12916-023-02827-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sarwat Mahmud, Ranju Baral, Colin Sanderson, Clint Pecenka, Mark Jit, You Li, Andrew Clark |
| Abstract |
Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is a leading cause of respiratory disease in young children. A number of mathematical models have been used to assess the cost-effectiveness of RSV prevention strategies, but these have not been designed for ease of use by multidisciplinary teams working in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). We describe the UNIVAC decision-support model (a proportionate outcomes static cohort model) and its approach to exploring the potential cost-effectiveness of two RSV prevention strategies: a single-dose maternal vaccine and a single-dose long-lasting monoclonal antibody (mAb) for infants. We identified model input parameters for 133 LMICs using evidence from the literature and selected national datasets. We calculated the potential cost-effectiveness of each RSV prevention strategy (compared to nothing and to each other) over the lifetimes of all children born in the year 2025 and compared our results to a separate model published by PATH. We ran sensitivity and scenario analyses to identify the inputs with the largest influence on the cost-effectiveness results. Our illustrative results assuming base case input assumptions for maternal vaccination ($3.50 per dose, 69% efficacy, 6 months protection) and infant mAb ($3.50 per dose, 77% efficacy, 5 months protection) showed that both interventions were cost-saving compared to status quo in around one-third of 133 LMICs, and had a cost per DALY averted below 0.5 times the national GDP per capita in the remaining LMICs. UNIVAC generated similar results to a separate model published by PATH. Cost-effectiveness results were most sensitive to changes in the price, efficacy and duration of protection of each strategy, and the rate (and cost) of RSV hospital admissions. Forthcoming RSV interventions (maternal vaccines and infant mAbs) are worth serious consideration in LMICs, but there is a good deal of uncertainty around several influential inputs, including intervention price, efficacy, and duration of protection. The UNIVAC decision-support model provides a framework for country teams to build consensus on data inputs, explore scenarios, and strengthen the local ownership and policy-relevance of results. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 25% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 2 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 75% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 29 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 10% |
| Unspecified | 2 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 14 | 48% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 14% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 10% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 10% |
| Unspecified | 2 | 7% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 2 | 7% |
| Unknown | 14 | 48% |
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 23 May 2023.
All research outputs
#16,335,878
of 24,837,702 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#3,340
of 3,861 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#221,913
of 405,134 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#96
of 120 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,837,702 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,861 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 45.2. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% 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 405,134 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 120 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.