↓ Skip to main content

Role of healthcare workers in early epidemic spread of Ebola: policy implications of prophylactic compared to reactive vaccination policy in outbreak prevention and control

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
twitter
8 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
33 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
99 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
Role of healthcare workers in early epidemic spread of Ebola: policy implications of prophylactic compared to reactive vaccination policy in outbreak prevention and control
Published in
BMC Medicine, October 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12916-015-0477-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Cordelia E. M. Coltart, Anne M. Johnson, Christopher J. M. Whitty

Abstract

Ebola causes severe illness in humans and has epidemic potential. How to deploy vaccines most effectively is a central policy question since different strategies have implications for ideal vaccine profile. More than one vaccine may be needed. A vaccine optimised for prophylactic vaccination in high-risk areas but when the virus is not actively circulating should be safe, well tolerated, and provide long-lasting protection; a two- or three-dose strategy would be realistic. Conversely, a reactive vaccine deployed in an outbreak context for ring-vaccination strategies should have rapid onset of protection with one dose, but longevity of protection is less important.In initial cases, before an outbreak is recognised, healthcare workers (HCWs) are at particular risk of acquiring and transmitting infection, thus potentially augmenting early epidemics. We hypothesise that many early outbreak cases could be averted, or epidemics aborted, by prophylactic vaccination of HCWs. This paper explores the potential impact of prophylactic versus reactive vaccination strategies of HCWs in preventing early epidemic transmissions. To do this, we use the limited data available from Ebola epidemics (current and historic) to reconstruct transmission trees and illustrate the theoretical impact of these vaccination strategies. Our data suggest a substantial potential benefit of prophylactic versus reactive vaccination of HCWs in preventing early transmissions. We estimate that prophylactic vaccination with a coverage >99 % and theoretical 100 % efficacy could avert nearly two-thirds of cases studied; 75 % coverage would still confer clear benefit (40 % cases averted), but reactive vaccination would be of less value in the early epidemic.A prophylactic vaccination campaign for front-line HCWs is not a trivial undertaking; whether to prioritise long-lasting vaccines and provide prophylaxis to HCWs is a live policy question. Prophylactic vaccination is likely to have a greater impact on the mitigation of future epidemics than reactive strategies and, in some cases, might prevent them. However, in a confirmed outbreak, reactive vaccination would be an essential humanitarian priority.The value of HCW Ebola vaccination is often only seen in terms of personal protection of the HCW workforce. A prophylactic vaccination strategy is likely to bring substantial additional benefit by preventing early transmission and might abort some epidemics. This has implications both for policy and for the optimum product profile for vaccines currently in development.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 99 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Unknown 97 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 21 21%
Researcher 18 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 11%
Student > Bachelor 9 9%
Other 9 9%
Other 17 17%
Unknown 14 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 32 32%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 6%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 3%
Other 12 12%
Unknown 21 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 31. 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 14 April 2020.
All research outputs
#1,152,378
of 23,965,413 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#792
of 3,623 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#17,944
of 287,240 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#25
of 85 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,965,413 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,623 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 44.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 287,240 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 85 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.