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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Addressing issues of vaccination literacy and psychological empowerment in the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccination decision-making: a qualitative study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Public Health, September 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12889-015-2200-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Marta Fadda, Miriam K. Depping, Peter J. Schulz |
| Abstract |
Whether or not to vaccinate one's child is one of the first health-related decisions parents have to make after their child's birth. For the past 20 years, the share of parents choosing not to immunize their children has increased in many countries, for various reasons. Among these, rumors affirming that vaccinations contain dangerous chemicals or might trigger severe chronic diseases have negatively affected parental attitudes towards pediatric immunizations, particularly the vaccination against measles, mumps and rubella (MMR), raising a number of public health concerns. The primary aim of this qualitative study is to understand what drives parents' decision, giving special attention to vaccination literacy and psychological empowerment in such a context. Twenty individual semi-structured interviews were conducted in the Canton of Ticino (Switzerland) between January and June 2014. Participants were either mothers or fathers of children less than 1 year old living in Switzerland. An inductive thematic analysis was performed to identify the main themes with regard to vaccination literacy and psychological empowerment in the MMR vaccination decision-making. Parents' reports yielded four main themes: (a) the paradox of the free choice, referring to the misinterpretation of current vaccination policies; (b) giving up the power, pointing at the outcomes of a low perceived competence; (c) a far-reaching decision, reflecting the importance attributed to the MMR choice and the different levels of impact the decision can have; (d) the demand for shared-decision making, referring to the parental needs in relation to the child's healthcare provider. Understanding what drives parents' management of their children's immunization schedule in terms of vaccination literacy and psychological empowerment can help health professionals to communicate more effectively with parents in order to facilitate an informed decision, and stakeholders to design tailored health education programs and materials. This can ultimately help increase the coverage of the MMR vaccination. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 60% |
| Japan | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 1 | 20% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 80% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 237 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 235 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 41 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 36 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 27 | 11% |
| Researcher | 24 | 10% |
| Other | 11 | 5% |
| Other | 35 | 15% |
| Unknown | 63 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 57 | 24% |
| Social Sciences | 31 | 13% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 30 | 13% |
| Psychology | 12 | 5% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 9 | 4% |
| Other | 28 | 12% |
| Unknown | 70 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 23 March 2016.
All research outputs
#14,464,579
of 24,274,366 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#10,297
of 16,001 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#130,955
of 271,644 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#206
of 329 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,274,366 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 16,001 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.4. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% 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 271,644 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 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 329 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.