↓ Skip to main content

The public health value of vaccines beyond efficacy: methods, measures and outcomes

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
policy
1 policy source
twitter
111 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
74 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
221 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
The public health value of vaccines beyond efficacy: methods, measures and outcomes
Published in
BMC Medicine, July 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12916-017-0911-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

A. Wilder-Smith, I. Longini, P. L. Zuber, T. Bärnighausen, W. J. Edmunds, N. Dean, V. Masserey Spicher, M. R. Benissa, B. D. Gessner

Abstract

Assessments of vaccine efficacy and safety capture only the minimum information needed for regulatory approval, rather than the full public health value of vaccines. Vaccine efficacy provides a measure of proportionate disease reduction, is usually limited to etiologically confirmed disease, and focuses on the direct protection of the vaccinated individual. Herein, we propose a broader scope of methods, measures and outcomes to evaluate the effectiveness and public health impact to be considered for evidence-informed policymaking in both pre- and post-licensure stages. Pre-licensure: Regulatory concerns dictate an individually randomised clinical trial. However, some circumstances (such as the West African Ebola epidemic) may require novel designs that could be considered valid for licensure by regulatory agencies. In addition, protocol-defined analytic plans for these studies should include clinical as well as etiologically confirmed endpoints (e.g. all cause hospitalisations, pneumonias, acute gastroenteritis and others as appropriate to the vaccine target), and should include vaccine-preventable disease incidence and 'number needed to vaccinate' as outcomes. Post-licensure: There is a central role for phase IV cluster randomised clinical trials that allows for estimation of population-level vaccine impact, including indirect, total and overall effects. Dynamic models should be prioritised over static models as the constant force of infection assumed in static models will usually underestimate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the immunisation programme by underestimating indirect effects. The economic impact of vaccinations should incorporate health and non-health benefits of vaccination in both the vaccinated and unvaccinated populations, thus allowing for estimation of the net social value of vaccination. The full benefits of vaccination reach beyond direct prevention of etiologically confirmed disease and often extend across the life course of a vaccinated person, prevent outcomes in the wider community, stabilise health systems, promote health equity, and benefit local and national economies. The degree to which vaccinations provide broad public health benefits is stronger than for other preventive and curative interventions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 111 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 221 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 221 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 37 17%
Researcher 30 14%
Student > Bachelor 24 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 9%
Student > Postgraduate 9 4%
Other 31 14%
Unknown 70 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 43 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 22 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 8 4%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 8 4%
Other 52 24%
Unknown 79 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 75. 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 04 January 2023.
All research outputs
#560,105
of 25,235,161 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#413
of 3,957 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,812
of 322,734 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#7
of 51 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,235,161 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,957 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 45.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 322,734 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 51 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.