↓ 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 (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
5 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
112 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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 112 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 108 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 21 19%
Researcher 20 18%
Student > Bachelor 12 11%
Other 8 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 6%
Other 21 19%
Unknown 23 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 37 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 7%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 6 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 4%
Social Sciences 4 4%
Other 19 17%
Unknown 33 29%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 10 March 2020.
All research outputs
#2,202,529
of 18,224,724 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#657
of 6,421 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#37,207
of 261,197 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,224,724 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,421 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 261,197 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 85% 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