↓ Skip to main content

Seasonal influenza vaccination of healthcare workers: systematic review of qualitative evidence

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
13 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
38 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
193 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Seasonal influenza vaccination of healthcare workers: systematic review of qualitative evidence
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, November 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12913-017-2703-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Theo Lorenc, David Marshall, Kath Wright, Katy Sutcliffe, Amanda Sowden

Abstract

Most countries recommend that healthcare workers (HCWs) are vaccinated seasonally against influenza in order to protect themselves and patients. However, in many cases coverage remains low. A range of strategies have been implemented to increase uptake. Qualitative evidence can help in understanding the context of interventions, including why interventions may fail to achieve the desired effect. This study aimed to synthesise evidence on HCWs' perceptions and experiences of vaccination for seasonal influenza. Systematic review of qualitative evidence. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL and included English-language studies which reported substantive qualitative data on the vaccination of HCWs for seasonal influenza. Findings were synthesised thematically. Twenty-five studies were included in the review. HCWs may be motivated to accept vaccination to protect themselves and their patients against infection. However, a range of beliefs may act as barriers to vaccine uptake, including concerns about side-effects, scepticism about vaccine effectiveness, and the belief that influenza is not a serious illness. HCWs value their autonomy and professional responsibility in making decisions about vaccination. The implementation of interventions to promote vaccination uptake may face barriers both from HCWs' personal beliefs and from the relationships between management and employees within the targeted organisations. HCWs' vaccination behaviour needs to be understood in the context of HCWs' relationships with each other, with management and with patients. Interventions to promote vaccination should take into account both the individual beliefs of targeted HCWs and the organisational context within which they are implemented.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 193 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 193 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 33 17%
Student > Bachelor 29 15%
Researcher 20 10%
Other 15 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 8%
Other 32 17%
Unknown 49 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 57 30%
Nursing and Health Professions 24 12%
Social Sciences 12 6%
Psychology 7 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 3%
Other 26 13%
Unknown 61 32%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 05 July 2018.
All research outputs
#3,800,564
of 18,825,797 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#1,818
of 6,329 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#72,572
of 277,391 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#173
of 569 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,825,797 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,329 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 277,391 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 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 569 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 69% of its contemporaries.