↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Face to face interventions for informing or educating parents about early childhood vaccination

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2013
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 (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
4 news outlets
policy
1 policy source
twitter
24 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user
video
1 video uploader

Citations

dimensions_citation
77 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
370 Mendeley
Title
Face to face interventions for informing or educating parents about early childhood vaccination
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010038.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jessica Kaufman, Anneliese Synnot, Rebecca Ryan, Sophie Hill, Dell Horey, Natalie Willis, Vivian Lin, Priscilla Robinson

Abstract

Childhood vaccination (also described as immunisation) is an important and effective way to reduce childhood illness and death. However, there are many children who do not receive the recommended vaccines because their parents do not know why vaccination is important, do not understand how, where or when to get their children vaccinated, disagree with vaccination as a public health measure, or have concerns about vaccine safety.Face to face interventions to inform or educate parents about routine childhood vaccination may improve vaccination rates and parental knowledge or understanding of vaccination. Such interventions may describe or explain the practical and logistical factors associated with vaccination, and enable parents to understand the meaning and relevance of vaccination for their family or community.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 24 tweeters 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 370 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 <1%
United States 2 <1%
Canada 2 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 357 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 72 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 54 15%
Researcher 49 13%
Student > Bachelor 47 13%
Student > Postgraduate 28 8%
Other 76 21%
Unknown 44 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 140 38%
Nursing and Health Professions 42 11%
Social Sciences 38 10%
Psychology 29 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 3%
Other 52 14%
Unknown 59 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 57. 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 15 December 2020.
All research outputs
#451,365
of 17,351,915 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,030
of 11,661 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,975
of 163,808 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8
of 131 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,351,915 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,661 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 163,808 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 131 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 94% of its contemporaries.