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 |
Reasons for non-vaccination in pediatric patients visiting tertiary care centers in a polio-prone country
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Archives of Public Health, July 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/0778-7367-71-19 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Asfandyar Sheikh, Bushra Iqbal, Anabia Ehtamam, Maria Rahim, Hiba Arshad Shaikh, Hina Azhar Usmani, Javeria Nasir, Sheharbano Ali, Muniba Zaki, Tooba Abdul Wahab, Warda Wasim, Ali Akber Aftab |
| Abstract |
The Expanded Program on Immunization (EPI) was initiated by World Health Organization (WHO) in 1974 in order to save children from life threatening, disabling vaccine-preventable diseases (VPDs). In Pakistan, this program was launched in 1978 with the main objectives of eradicating polio by 2012, eliminating measles and neonatal tetanus by 2015, and minimizing the incidence of other VPDs. However, despite the efforts of government and WHO, this program has not received the amount of success that was desired. Hence, the objectives of this study were to elucidate the main reasons behind not achieving the full immunization coverage in Pakistan, the awareness of children's attendant about the importance of vaccination, their attitudes, thoughts and fears regarding childhood immunization, and the major hurdles faced in pursuit of getting their children vaccinated. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 Kingdom | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 103 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Kenya | 1 | <1% |
| Peru | 1 | <1% |
| Vietnam | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 100 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 21 | 20% |
| Researcher | 12 | 12% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 11 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 6% |
| Other | 17 | 17% |
| Unknown | 28 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 39 | 38% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 13 | 13% |
| Social Sciences | 7 | 7% |
| Psychology | 5 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 8 | 8% |
| Unknown | 28 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 29 August 2019.
All research outputs
#7,356,343
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Archives of Public Health
#432
of 1,144 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#58,656
of 206,674 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Archives of Public Health
#4
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,144 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% 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 206,674 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 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 6 of them.