↓ Skip to main content

Use of formative research in developing a knowledge translation approach to rotavirus vaccine introduction in developing countries

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, October 2007
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
1 X user
wikipedia
21 Wikipedia pages
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
55 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
159 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
Use of formative research in developing a knowledge translation approach to rotavirus vaccine introduction in developing countries
Published in
BMC Public Health, October 2007
DOI 10.1186/1471-2458-7-281
Pubmed ID
Authors

Evan Simpson, Scott Wittet, Josefina Bonilla, Kateryna Gamazina, Laura Cooley, Jennifer L Winkler

Abstract

Rotavirus gastroenteritis is the leading cause of diarrheal disease mortality among children under five, resulting in 450,000 to 700,000 deaths each year, and another 2 million hospitalizations, mostly in the developing world. Nearly every child in the world is infected with rotavirus at least once before they are five years old. Vaccines to prevent rotavirus or minimize its severity are now becoming available, and have already been introduced into the public vaccine programs of several Latin American countries. The World Health Organization (WHO) has made rotavirus vaccine introduction in developing countries a high priority. The WHOs Guidelines for Vaccine Introduction indicates that a key determinant to achieving vaccine introduction is the public health priority of the disease, suggesting that where the disease is not a priority uptake of the vaccine is unlikely. WHO recommends conducting a qualitative analysis of opinions held by the public health community to determine the perceptions of the disease and the priority given to the vaccine.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 159 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 3 2%
Indonesia 1 <1%
Bangladesh 1 <1%
Kenya 1 <1%
Unknown 153 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 29 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 28 18%
Student > Master 24 15%
Student > Bachelor 16 10%
Other 9 6%
Other 21 13%
Unknown 32 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 42 26%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 17 11%
Social Sciences 15 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 6%
Immunology and Microbiology 7 4%
Other 30 19%
Unknown 39 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 January 2024.
All research outputs
#2,335,315
of 22,780,967 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#2,682
of 14,852 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,543
of 71,882 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#5
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,780,967 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,852 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 71,882 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 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.