↓ Skip to main content

Policy analysis for deciding on a malaria vaccine RTS,S in Tanzania

Overview of attention for article published in Malaria Journal, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
107 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
Policy analysis for deciding on a malaria vaccine RTS,S in Tanzania
Published in
Malaria Journal, March 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12936-016-1197-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Idda Romore, Ritha J. A. Njau, Innocent Semali, Aziza Mwisongo, Antoinette Ba Nguz, Hassan Mshinda, Marcel Tanner, Salim Abdulla

Abstract

Traditionally, it has taken decades to introduce new interventions in low-income countries. Several factors account for these delays, one of which is the absence of a framework to facilitate comprehensive understanding of policy process to inform policy makers and stimulate the decision-making process. In the case of the proposed introduction of malaria vaccines in Tanzania, a specific framework for decision-making will speed up the administrative process and shorten the time until the vaccine is made available to the target population. Qualitative research was used as a basis for developing the Policy Framework. Interviews were conducted with government officials, bilateral and multilateral partners and other stakeholders in Tanzania to assess malaria treatment policy changes and to draw lessons for malaria vaccine adoption. The decision-making process for adopting malaria interventions and new vaccines in general takes years, involving several processes: meetings and presentations of scientific data from different studies with consistent results, packaging and disseminating evidence and getting approval for use by the Ministry of Health and Social Welfare (MOHSW). It is influenced by contextual factors; Promoting factors include; epidemiological and intervention characteristics, country experiences of malaria treatment policy change, presentation and dissemination of evidence, coordination and harmonization of the process, use of international scientific evidence. Barriers factors includes; financial sustainability, competing health and other priorities, political will and bureaucratic procedures, costs related to the adoption and implementations of interventions, supply and distribution and professional compliance with anti-malarial drugs. The framework facilitates the synthesis of information in a coherent way, enabling a clearer understanding of the policy process, thereby speeding up the policy decision-making process and shortening the time for a malaria vaccine to become available.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 107 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 106 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 27 25%
Researcher 17 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 5%
Librarian 5 5%
Other 20 19%
Unknown 20 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 18 17%
Social Sciences 11 10%
Immunology and Microbiology 6 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 4%
Other 25 23%
Unknown 22 21%
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 16 March 2016.
All research outputs
#7,525,196
of 24,400,706 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
#2,201
of 5,827 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#99,250
of 304,250 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
#65
of 192 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,400,706 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 5,827 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% 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 304,250 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 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 192 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 66% of its contemporaries.