↓ Skip to main content

Stakeholders’ perception on including broader economic impact of vaccines in economic evaluations in low and middle income countries: a mixed methods study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
72 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
Stakeholders’ perception on including broader economic impact of vaccines in economic evaluations in low and middle income countries: a mixed methods study
Published in
BMC Public Health, April 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12889-015-1638-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ingeborg M van der Putten, Silvia MAA Evers, Rohan Deogaonkar, Mark Jit, Raymond CW Hutubessy

Abstract

Current health economic evaluation guidelines mainly concentrate on immediate health gains and cost savings for the individual involved in the intervention. However, it has been argued that these guidelines are too narrow to capture the full impact of vaccination in low and middle income countries. The inclusion of broader economic impact of vaccines (BEIV) has therefore been proposed. Some examples of these are productivity-related gains, macro-economic impact, and different externalities. Despite their potency, the extent to which such benefits can and should be incorporated into economic evaluations of vaccination is still unclear. This mixed methods study aims to assess the relevance of BEIV to different stakeholders involved in the vaccine introduction decision making process. In this mixed method study an internet based survey was sent to attendees of the New and Underutilized Vaccines Initiative meeting in Montreux, Switzerland in 2011. Additionally, semi-structured interviews of 15 minutes each were conducted during the meeting. Study participants included decision makers, experts and funders of vaccines and immunization programs in low and middle income countries. Descriptive analysis of the survey, along with identification of common themes and factors extracted from the interviews and open survey questions was undertaken. Evidence on macro-economic impact, burden of disease and ecological effects were perceived as being most valuable towards aiding decision making for vaccine introduction by the 26 survey respondents. The 14 interviewees highlighted the importance of burden of disease and different types of indirect effects. Furthermore, some new interpretations of BEIVs were discussed, such as the potential negative impact of wastage during immunization programs and the idea of using vaccines as a platform for delivering other types of health interventions. Interviewees also highlighted the importance of using a broader perspective in connection to measuring economic impacts, particularly when attempting to derive the value of newer, more expensive vaccines. According to participants, BEIVs were seen as being equally important as traditional outcome measures used in cost-effectiveness analyses. Such insight can be used to shape research agendas within this field and to eventually create broader, more inclusive practical guidelines for economic evaluations of vaccines.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 72 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Indonesia 1 1%
Colombia 1 1%
Bangladesh 1 1%
Unknown 69 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 18 25%
Student > Master 15 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 11%
Student > Bachelor 7 10%
Other 4 6%
Other 11 15%
Unknown 9 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 24%
Psychology 8 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 10%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 6 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 5 7%
Other 18 25%
Unknown 11 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 20 April 2015.
All research outputs
#10,210,331
of 13,385,200 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#7,604
of 9,233 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#144,411
of 227,873 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#1
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,385,200 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,233 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.1. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 227,873 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 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