↓ Skip to main content

The fallacy of coverage: uncovering disparities to improve immunization rates through evidence. Results from the Canadian International Immunization Initiative Phase 2 - Operational Research Grants

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, October 2009
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 (72nd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
55 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 fallacy of coverage: uncovering disparities to improve immunization rates through evidence. Results from the Canadian International Immunization Initiative Phase 2 - Operational Research Grants
Published in
BMC Public Health, October 2009
DOI 10.1186/1472-698x-9-s1-s1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sharmila L Mhatre, Anne-Marie Schryer-Roy

Abstract

Immunization can and does save lives. However, the presence of vaccines does not easily translate into every child being vaccinated, and this is what the studies in this journal supplement reveal. From South Asia to West Africa,the evidence presented here reveals what we are calling the fallacy of coverage, going beyond uncovering the real vaccination rates to providing evidence on the reasons for the lack of effective coverage.The evidence for the fallacy of coverage is part of an operational research program entitled the Canadian International Immunization Initiative Phase 2 (CIII2). Through a competitive peer review process, six research grants were awarded to increase access to and enhance immunization services. This journal supplement provides a forum for the presentation of the results of five of the six studies.The story of the fallacy of coverage is made up of five theme areas of evidence - timeliness of immunization, social and gender inequities, vaccine efficacy, understanding demand side issues to tailor interventions, and national data sets masking actual district level coverage rates - that reveal the discrepancies in immunization coverage rates and the reasons behind these discrepancies. As part of the story, and to turn around the fallacy of coverage, the studies also provide proof of effective and locally relevant solutions.Policies and funding, while keeping an eye on future diseases, clearly need to maintain and increase support to address existing vaccine-preventable diseases to increase coverage such that by 2015 we can achieve 90% national vaccination coverage and reach the MDG of reducing mortality rates among children under five by two-thirds.The results from the operational research grants of the CIII2 offer some answers on how to reach this goal by demonstrating how locally generated evidence can inform immunization strategies to ensure that children who need to get vaccinated will get vaccinated, and vaccinated on time.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Malaysia 1 2%
Chile 1 2%
Ghana 1 2%
Kenya 1 2%
Canada 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Unknown 49 89%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 16%
Student > Postgraduate 8 15%
Student > Master 8 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 9%
Student > Bachelor 5 9%
Other 8 15%
Unknown 12 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 27%
Social Sciences 7 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 5%
Psychology 3 5%
Other 7 13%
Unknown 16 29%
Attention Score in Context

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 17 October 2023.
All research outputs
#5,445,969
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#6,442
of 17,503 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,922
of 105,732 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#22
of 67 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 17,503 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% 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 105,732 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 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 67 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 62% of its contemporaries.