↓ Skip to main content

Non-pharmaceutical public health interventions for pandemic influenza: an evaluation of the evidence base

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, August 2007
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 (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
12 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
policy
4 policy sources
twitter
27 tweeters
wikipedia
6 Wikipedia pages
video
2 video uploaders

Citations

dimensions_citation
235 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
326 Mendeley
citeulike
2 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
Non-pharmaceutical public health interventions for pandemic influenza: an evaluation of the evidence base
Published in
BMC Public Health, August 2007
DOI 10.1186/1471-2458-7-208
Pubmed ID
Authors

Julia E Aledort, Nicole Lurie, Jeffrey Wasserman, Samuel A Bozzette

Abstract

In an influenza pandemic, the benefit of vaccines and antiviral medications will be constrained by limitations on supplies and effectiveness. Non-pharmaceutical public health interventions will therefore be vital in curtailing disease spread. However, the most comprehensive assessments of the literature to date recognize the generally poor quality of evidence on which to base non-pharmaceutical pandemic planning decisions. In light of the need to prepare for a possible pandemic despite concerns about the poor quality of the literature, combining available evidence with expert opinion about the relative merits of non-pharmaceutical interventions for pandemic influenza may lead to a more informed and widely accepted set of recommendations. We evaluated the evidence base for non-pharmaceutical public health interventions. Then, based on the collective evidence, we identified a set of recommendations for and against interventions that are specific to both the setting in which an intervention may be used and the pandemic phase, and which can be used by policymakers to prepare for a pandemic until scientific evidence can definitively respond to planners' needs.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 27 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 326 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 5 2%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
New Zealand 1 <1%
Cameroon 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Estonia 1 <1%
Unknown 315 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 59 18%
Student > Master 48 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 38 12%
Student > Bachelor 31 10%
Other 20 6%
Other 70 21%
Unknown 60 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 89 27%
Social Sciences 25 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 24 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 20 6%
Mathematics 12 4%
Other 82 25%
Unknown 74 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 140. 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 27 February 2022.
All research outputs
#213,495
of 21,110,276 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#185
of 13,673 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,046
of 320,409 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,110,276 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,673 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 320,409 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them