↓ Skip to main content

Vaccination decision-making of immigrant parents in the Netherlands; a focus group study

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
2 policy sources
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
41 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
45 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
Vaccination decision-making of immigrant parents in the Netherlands; a focus group study
Published in
BMC Public Health, December 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12889-015-2572-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Irene A. Harmsen, Helien Bos, Robert A. C. Ruiter, Theo G. W. Paulussen, Gerjo Kok, Hester E. de Melker, Liesbeth Mollema

Abstract

Although the vaccination coverage in most high income countries is high, variations in coverage rates on the national level among different ethnic backgrounds are reported. A qualitative study was performed to explore factors that influence decision-making among parents with different ethnic backgrounds in the Netherlands. Six focus groups were conducted with 33 mothers of Moroccan, Turkish and other ethnic backgrounds with at least one child aged 0-4 years. Data were analysed using thematic analysis. Parents had a positive attitude towards childhood vaccination and a high confidence in the advices of Child Vaccine Providers (CVPs). Vaccinating their children was perceived as self-evident and important. Parents do perceive a language barrier in understanding the provided NIP-information, and they had a need for more NIP- information, particularly about the targeted diseases. Another barrier parents perceived was the distance to the Child Welfare Center (CWC), especially when the weather was bad and when they had no access to a car. More information about targeted diseases and complete information regarding benefits and drawbacks of the NIP should be provided to the parents. To fulfill parents' information needs, NIP information meetings can be organized at CWCs in different languages. Providing NIP information material in Turkish, Arabic and Berber language with easy access is also recommended. Providing information tailored to these parents' needs is important to sustain high vaccination participation, and to ensure acceptance of future vaccinations.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 45 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 13%
Researcher 4 9%
Student > Bachelor 3 7%
Other 2 4%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 2%
Other 3 7%
Unknown 26 58%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 18%
Social Sciences 5 11%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 7%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 24 53%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 13 July 2022.
All research outputs
#4,896,302
of 23,917,011 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#5,386
of 15,543 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#80,355
of 394,895 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#73
of 226 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,917,011 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 15,543 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% 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 394,895 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 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 226 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 68% of its contemporaries.