↓ Skip to main content

Review of economic evaluations of mask and respirator use for protection against respiratory infection transmission

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Infectious Diseases, October 2015
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)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
6 X users
patent
1 patent

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
118 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
Review of economic evaluations of mask and respirator use for protection against respiratory infection transmission
Published in
BMC Infectious Diseases, October 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12879-015-1167-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shohini Mukerji, C. Raina MacIntyre, Anthony T. Newall

Abstract

There has been increasing debate surrounding mask and respirator interventions to control respiratory infection transmission in both healthcare and community settings. As decision makers are considering the recommendations they should evaluate how to provide the most efficient protection strategies with minimum costs. The aim of this review is to identify and evaluate the existing economic evaluation literature in this area and to offer advice on how future evaluations on this topic should be conducted. We searched the Scopus database for all literature on economic evaluation of mask or respirator use to control respiratory infection transmission. Reference lists from the identified studies were also manually searched. Seven studies met our inclusion criteria from the initial 806 studies identified by the search strategy and our manual search. Five studies considered interventions for seasonal and/or pandemic influenza, with one also considering SARS (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome). The other two studies focussed on tuberculosis transmission control interventions. The settings and methodologies of the studies varied greatly. No low-middle income settings were identified. Only one of the reviewed studies cited clinical evidence to inform their mask/respirator intervention effectiveness parameters. Mask and respirator interventions were generally reported by the study authors to be cost saving or cost-effective when compared to no intervention or other control measures, however the evaluations had important limitations. Given the large cost differential between masks and respirators, there is a need for more comprehensive economic evaluations to compare the relative costs and benefits of these interventions in situations and settings where alternative options are potentially applicable. There are at present insufficient well conducted cost-effectiveness studies to inform decision-makers on the value for money of alternative mask/respirator options.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 118 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 114 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 23 19%
Researcher 19 16%
Student > Bachelor 12 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 6%
Other 7 6%
Other 20 17%
Unknown 30 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 37 31%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 6%
Social Sciences 5 4%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 5 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 3%
Other 19 16%
Unknown 41 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 November 2023.
All research outputs
#2,411,738
of 24,880,704 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#700
of 8,364 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,069
of 285,057 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#13
of 157 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,880,704 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,364 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 285,057 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 157 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.