↓ Skip to main content

Sub-national variation in measles vaccine coverage and outbreak risk: a case study from a 2010 outbreak in Malawi

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
40 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
Sub-national variation in measles vaccine coverage and outbreak risk: a case study from a 2010 outbreak in Malawi
Published in
BMC Public Health, June 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12889-018-5628-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Avery Kundrick, Zhuojie Huang, Spencer Carran, Matthew Kagoli, Rebecca Freeman Grais, Northan Hurtado, Matthew Ferrari

Abstract

Despite progress towards increasing global vaccination coverage, measles continues to be one of the leading, preventable causes of death among children worldwide. Whether and how to target sub-national areas for vaccination campaigns continues to remain a question. We analyzed three metrics for prioritizing target areas: vaccination coverage, susceptible birth cohort, and the effective reproductive ratio (RE) in the context of the 2010 measles epidemic in Malawi. Using case-based surveillance data from the 2010 measles outbreak in Malawi, we estimated vaccination coverage from the proportion of cases reporting with a history of prior vaccination at the district and health facility catchment scale. Health facility catchments were defined as the set of locations closer to a given health facility than to any other. We combined these estimates with regional birth rates to estimate the size of the annual susceptible birth cohort. We also estimated the effective reproductive ratio, RE, at the health facility polygon scale based on the observed rate of exponential increase of the epidemic. We combined these estimates to identify spatial regions that would be of high priority for supplemental vaccination activities. The estimated vaccination coverage across all districts was 84%, but ranged from 61 to 99%. We found that 8 districts and 354 health facility catchments had estimated vaccination coverage below 80%. Areas that had highest birth cohort size were frequently large urban centers that had high vaccination coverage. The estimated RE ranged between 1 and 2.56. The ranking of districts and health facility catchments as priority areas varied depending on the measure used. Each metric for prioritization may result in discrete target areas for vaccination campaigns; thus, there are tradeoffs to choosing one metric over another. However, in some cases, certain areas may be prioritized by all three metrics. These areas should be treated with particular concern. Furthermore, the spatial scale at which each metric is calculated impacts the resulting prioritization and should also be considered when prioritizing areas for vaccination campaigns. These methods may be used to allocate effort for prophylactic campaigns or to prioritize response for outbreak response vaccination.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 40 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 28%
Researcher 9 23%
Student > Bachelor 4 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 5%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 9 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 8 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 15%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 3 8%
Engineering 2 5%
Computer Science 1 3%
Other 5 13%
Unknown 15 38%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 2021.
All research outputs
#4,998,747
of 19,157,212 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#5,204
of 12,630 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#91,777
of 292,373 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,157,212 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,630 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% 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 292,373 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 68% 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