↓ Skip to main content

Charting the evolution of approaches employed by the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunizations (GAVI) to address inequities in access to immunization: a systematic qualitative review of GAVI…

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
148 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
Charting the evolution of approaches employed by the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunizations (GAVI) to address inequities in access to immunization: a systematic qualitative review of GAVI policies, strategies and resource allocation mechanisms through an equity lens (1999–2014)
Published in
BMC Public Health, November 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12889-015-2521-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gian Gandhi

Abstract

GAVI's focus on reducing inequities in access to vaccines, immunization, and GAVI funds, - both between and within countries - has changed over time. This paper charts that evolution. A systematic qualitative review was conducted by searching PubMed, Google Scholar and direct review of available GAVI Board papers, policies, and program guidelines. Documents were included if they described or evaluated GAVI policies, strategies, or programs and discussed equity of access to vaccines, utilization of immunization services, or GAVI funds in countries currently or previously eligible for GAVI support. Findings were grouped thematically, categorized into time periods covering GAVI's phases of operations, and assessed depending on whether the approaches mediated equity of opportunity or equity of outcomes between or within countries. Serches yielded 2816 documents for assessment. After pre-screening and removal of duplicates, 552 documents underwent detailed evaluation and pertinent information was extracted from 188 unique documents. As a global funding mechanism, GAVI responded rationally to a semi-fixed funding constraint by focusing on between-country equity in allocation of resources. GAVI's predominant focus and documented successes have been in addressing between-country inequities in access to vaccines comparing lower income (GAVI-eligible) countries with higher income (ineligible) countries. GAVI has had mixed results at addressing between-country inequities in utilization of immunization services, and has only more recently put greater emphasis and resources towards addressing within-country inequities in utilization to immunization services. Over time, GAVI has progressively added vaccines to its portfolio. This expansion should have addressed inter-country, inter-regional, inter-generational and gender inequities in disease burden, however, evidence is scant with respect to final outcomes. In its next phase of operations, the Alliance can continue to demonstrate its strength as a highly effective multi-partner enterprise, capable of learning and innovating in a world that has changed much since its inception. By building on its successes, developing more coherent and consistent approaches to address inequities between and within countries and by monitoring progress and outcomes, GAVI is well-positioned to bring the benefits of vaccination to previously unreached and underserved communities towards provision of universal health coverage.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 148 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 147 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 26 18%
Researcher 24 16%
Student > Bachelor 12 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 7%
Other 26 18%
Unknown 38 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 26 18%
Social Sciences 22 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 19 13%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 7 5%
Immunology and Microbiology 5 3%
Other 27 18%
Unknown 42 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 May 2020.
All research outputs
#6,963,629
of 22,834,308 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#7,343
of 14,878 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#109,657
of 387,533 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#115
of 228 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,834,308 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,878 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.9. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% 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 387,533 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 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 228 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.