↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Influenza vaccination for healthcare workers who care for people aged 60 or older living in long‐term care institutions

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2016
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 (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
4 news outlets
blogs
5 blogs
policy
1 policy source
twitter
745 X users
facebook
21 Facebook pages
wikipedia
9 Wikipedia pages
googleplus
2 Google+ users
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
66 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
421 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Influenza vaccination for healthcare workers who care for people aged 60 or older living in long‐term care institutions
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd005187.pub5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Roger E Thomas, Tom Jefferson, Toby J Lasserson

Abstract

A systematic review found that 3% of working adults who had received influenza vaccine and 5% of those who were unvaccinated had laboratory-proven influenza per season; in healthcare workers (HCWs) these percentages were 5% and 8% respectively. Healthcare workers may transmit influenza to patients. To identify all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs assessing the effects of vaccinating healthcare workers on the incidence of laboratory-proven influenza, pneumonia, death from pneumonia and admission to hospital for respiratory illness in those aged 60 years or older resident in long-term care institutions (LTCIs). We searched CENTRAL (2015, Issue 9), MEDLINE (1966 to October week 3, 2015), EMBASE (1974 to October 2015) and Web of Science (2006 to October 2015), but Biological Abstracts only from 1969 to March 2013 and Science Citation Index-Expanded from 1974 to March 2013 due to lack of institutional access in 2015. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs of influenza vaccination of healthcare workers caring for individuals aged 60 years or older in LTCIs and the incidence of laboratory-proven influenza and its complications (lower respiratory tract infection, or hospitalisation or death due to lower respiratory tract infection) in individuals aged 60 years or older in LTCIs. Two authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Effects on dichotomous outcomes were measured as risk differences (RDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the quality of evidence with GRADE. We identified four cluster-RCTs and one cohort study (n = 12,742) of influenza vaccination for HCWs caring for individuals ≥ 60 years in LTCIs. Four cluster RCTs (5896 residents) provided outcome data that addressed the objectives of our review. The studies were comparable in their study populations, intervention and outcome measures. The studies did not report adverse events. The principal sources of bias in the studies related to attrition, lack of blinding, contamination in the control groups and low rates of vaccination coverage in the intervention arms, leading us to downgrade the quality of evidence for all outcomes due to serious risk of bias.Offering influenza vaccination to HCWs based in long term care homes may have little or no effect on the number of residents who develop laboratory-proven influenza compared with those living in care homes where no vaccination is offered (RD 0 (95% CI -0.03 to 0.03), two studies with samples taken from 752 participants; low quality evidence). HCW vaccination probably leads to a reduction in lower respiratory tract infection in residents from 6% to 4% (RD -0.02 (95% CI -0.04 to 0.01), one study of 3400 people; moderate quality evidence). HCW vaccination programmes may have little or no effect on the number of residents admitted to hospital for respiratory illness (RD 0 (95% CI -0.02 to 0.02, one study of 1059 people; low quality evidence). We decided not to combine data on deaths from lower respiratory tract infection (two studies of 4459 people) or all cause deaths (four studies of 8468 people). The direction and size of difference in risk varied between the studies. We are uncertain as to the effect of vaccination on these outcomes due to the very low quality of evidence. Adjusted analyses, which took into account the cluster design, did not differ substantively from the pooled analysis with unadjusted data. Our review findings have not identified conclusive evidence of benefit of HCW vaccination programmes on specific outcomes of laboratory-proven influenza, its complications (lower respiratory tract infection, hospitalisation or death due to lower respiratory tract illness), or all cause mortality in people over the age of 60 who live in care institutions. This review did not find information on co-interventions with healthcare worker vaccination: hand-washing, face masks, early detection of laboratory-proven influenza, quarantine, avoiding admissions, antivirals and asking healthcare workers with influenza or influenza-like illness (ILI) not to work. This review does not provide reasonable evidence to support the vaccination of healthcare workers to prevent influenza in those aged 60 years or older resident in LTCIs. High quality RCTs are required to avoid the risks of bias in methodology and conduct identified by this review and to test further these interventions in combination.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 745 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 421 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 414 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 76 18%
Student > Bachelor 49 12%
Researcher 42 10%
Other 37 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 6%
Other 78 19%
Unknown 113 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 135 32%
Nursing and Health Professions 51 12%
Social Sciences 15 4%
Psychology 14 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 3%
Other 62 15%
Unknown 132 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 584. 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 17 April 2024.
All research outputs
#40,603
of 25,732,188 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#76
of 13,136 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#774
of 354,925 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5
of 279 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,732,188 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,136 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 354,925 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 279 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 98% of its contemporaries.