↓ Skip to main content

The new WHO decision-making framework on vaccine use in acute humanitarian emergencies: MSF experience in Minkaman, South Sudan

Overview of attention for article published in Conflict and Health, March 2018
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 (88th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
93 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 new WHO decision-making framework on vaccine use in acute humanitarian emergencies: MSF experience in Minkaman, South Sudan
Published in
Conflict and Health, March 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13031-018-0147-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Monica Rull, Sophie Masson, Nicolas Peyraud, Marco Simonelli, Alexandre Ventura, Claire Dorion, Francisco J. Luquero, Florent Uzzeni, Iza Cigleneki

Abstract

The main causes of death during population movements can be prevented by addressing the population's basic needs. In 2013, the World Health Organization (WHO) issued a framework for decision making to help prioritize vaccinations in acute humanitarian emergencies. This article describes MSF's experience of applying this framework in addition to addressing key population needs in a displacement setting in Minkaman, South Sudan. Military clashes broke out in South Sudan in December 2013. By May 2014, Minkaman, a village in the Lakes State, hosted some 85,000 displaced people. MSF arrived in Minkaman on 28 December 2013 and immediately provided interventions to address the key humanitarian needs (health care, access to drinking water, measles vaccination). The WHO framework was used to identify priority vaccines: those preventing outbreaks (measles, polio, oral cholera vaccine, and vaccine against meningococcal meningitis A (MenAfrivac®)) and those reducing childhood morbidity and mortality (pentavalent vaccine that combines diphtheria, tetanus, whooping cough, hepatitis B, and Haemophilus influenzae type B; pneumococcal vaccine; and rotavirus vaccine). By mid-March, access to primary and secondary health care was ensured, including community health activities and the provision of safe water. Mass vaccination campaigns against measles, polio, cholera, and meningitis had been organized. Vaccination campaigns against the main deadly childhood diseases, however, were not in place owing to lack of authorization by the Ministry of Health (MoH). The first field use of the new WHO framework for prioritizing vaccines in acute emergencies is described. Although MSF was unable to implement the full package of priority vaccines because authorization could not be obtained from the MoH, a series of mass vaccination campaigns against key epidemic-prone diseases was successfully implemented within a complex emergency context. Together with covering the population's basic needs, this might have contributed to reducing mortality levels below the emergency threshold and to the absence of epidemics. For the WHO framework to be used to its full potential it must not only be adapted for field use but, most importantly, national decision makers should be briefed on the framework and its practical implementation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 93 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 93 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 24 26%
Researcher 17 18%
Student > Bachelor 8 9%
Other 7 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 5%
Other 9 10%
Unknown 23 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 25 27%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 14%
Social Sciences 6 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 5 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 4%
Other 13 14%
Unknown 27 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. 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 13 July 2022.
All research outputs
#1,705,767
of 23,917,011 outputs
Outputs from Conflict and Health
#141
of 600 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#38,549
of 333,329 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Conflict and Health
#8
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,917,011 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 600 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% 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 333,329 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.