↓ Skip to main content

Capacity building in national influenza laboratories – use of laboratory assessments to drive progress

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Infectious Diseases, November 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 (87th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 tweeter
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 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
Capacity building in national influenza laboratories – use of laboratory assessments to drive progress
Published in
BMC Infectious Diseases, November 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12879-015-1232-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lucinda E. A. Johnson, Sarah A. Muir-Paulik, Pam Kennedy, Steven Lindstrom, Amanda Balish, Tricia Aden, Ann C. Moen

Abstract

Laboratory testing is a fundamental component of influenza surveillance for detecting novel strains with pandemic potential and informing biannual vaccine strain selection. The United States (U.S.) Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), under the auspices of its WHO Collaborating Center for Influenza, is one of the major public health agencies which provides support globally to build national capacity for influenza surveillance. Our main objective was to determine if laboratory assessments supported capacity building efforts for improved global influenza surveillance. In 2010, 35 national influenza laboratories were assessed in 34 countries, using a standardized tool. Post-assessment, each laboratory received a report with a list of recommendations for improvement. Uptake of recommendations were reviewed 3.2 mean years after the initial assessments and categorized as complete, in-progress, no action or no update. This was a retrospective study; follow-up took place through routine project management rather than at a set time-point post-assessment. WHO data on National Influenza Centre (NIC) designation, External Quality Assessment Project (EQAP) participation and FluNet reporting was used to measure laboratory capacity longitudinally and independently of the assessments. All data was further stratified by World Bank country income category. At follow-up, 81 % of 614 recommendations were either complete (350) or in-progress (145) for 32 laboratories (91 % response rate). The number of countries reporting to FluNet and the number of specimens they reported annually increased between 2005, when they were first funded by CDC, and 2010, the assessment year (p < 0.01). Improvements were also seen in EQAP participation and NIC designation over time and more so for low and lower-middle income countries. Assessments using a standardized tool have been beneficial to improving laboratory-based influenza surveillance. Specific recommendations helped countries identify and prioritize areas for improvement. Data from assessments helped CDC focus its technical assistance by country and region. Low and lower-middle income countries made greater improvements in their laboratories compared with upper-middle income countries. Future research could include an analysis of annual funding and technical assistance by country. Our approach serves as an example for capacity building for other diseases.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 %
Researcher 8 20%
Student > Bachelor 6 15%
Student > Master 5 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 8%
Student > Postgraduate 3 8%
Other 6 15%
Unknown 9 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 15%
Social Sciences 5 13%
Psychology 3 8%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 5%
Other 13 33%
Unknown 8 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 01 December 2017.
All research outputs
#1,744,404
of 17,358,590 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#477
of 6,153 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#36,314
of 291,624 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#50
of 584 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,358,590 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,153 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 291,624 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 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 584 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 91% of its contemporaries.