↓ Skip to main content

Determinants of Vaccination Coverage and Consequences for Rabies Control in Bali, Indonesia

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Veterinary Science, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (82nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
30 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
154 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
Determinants of Vaccination Coverage and Consequences for Rabies Control in Bali, Indonesia
Published in
Frontiers in Veterinary Science, January 2017
DOI 10.3389/fvets.2016.00123
Pubmed ID
Authors

Riana A Arief, Katie Hampson, Andri Jatikusumah, Maria D W Widyastuti, Sunandar, Chaerul Basri, Anak A G Putra, Iwan Willyanto, Agnes T S Estoepangestie, I W Mardiana, I K G N Kesuma, I P Sumantra, Paul F Doherty, M D Salman, Jeff Gilbert, Fred Unger

Abstract

Maintaining high vaccination coverage is key to successful rabies control, but mass dog vaccination can be challenging and population turnover erodes coverage. Declines in rabies incidence following successive island-wide vaccination campaigns in Bali suggest that prospects for controlling and ultimately eliminating rabies are good. Rabies, however, has continued to circulate at low levels. In the push to eliminate rabies from Bali, high coverage needs to be maintained across all areas of the island. We carried out door-to-door (DTD) questionnaire surveys (n = 10,352 dog-owning households) and photographic mark-recapture surveys (536 line transects, 2,597 observations of free-roaming dogs) in 2011-2012 to estimate dog population sizes and assess rabies vaccination coverage and dog demographic characteristics in Bali, Indonesia. The median number of dogs per subvillage unit (banjar) was 43 (range 0-307) for owned dogs estimated from the DTD survey and 17 (range 0-83) for unconfined dogs (including both owned and unowned) from transects. Vaccination coverage of owned dogs was significantly higher in adults (91.4%) compared to juveniles (<1 year, 43.9%), likely due to insufficient targeting of pups and from puppies born subsequent to vaccination campaigns. Juveniles had a 10-70 times greater risk of not being vaccinated in urban, suburban, and rural areas [combined odds ratios (ORs): 9.9-71.1, 95% CI: 8.6-96.0]. Free-roaming owned dogs were also 2-3 times more likely to be not vaccinated compared to those confined (combined Ors: 1.9-3.6, 95% CI: 1.4-5.4), with more dogs being confined in urban (71.2%) than in suburban (16.1%) and rural areas (8.0%). Vaccination coverage estimates from transects were also much lower (30.9%) than household surveys (83.6%), possibly due to loss of collars used to identify the vaccination status of free-roaming dogs, but these unconfined dogs may also include dogs that were unowned or more difficult to vaccinate. Overall, coverage levels were high in the owned dog population, but for future campaigns in Bali to have the highest chance of eliminating rabies, concerted effort should be made to vaccinate free-roaming dogs particularly in suburban and rural areas, with advertising to ensure that owners vaccinate pups. Long-lasting, cheap, and quick methods are needed to mark vaccinated animals and reassure communities of the reach of vaccination campaigns.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 154 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 153 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Lecturer 23 15%
Student > Master 21 14%
Researcher 16 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 8%
Other 10 6%
Other 23 15%
Unknown 48 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 34 22%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 33 21%
Medicine and Dentistry 14 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 7%
Social Sciences 3 2%
Other 11 7%
Unknown 48 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 30 June 2017.
All research outputs
#3,678,821
of 22,959,818 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Veterinary Science
#635
of 6,288 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#73,953
of 421,619 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Veterinary Science
#7
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,959,818 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,288 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 421,619 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 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 38 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.