fbpx Effectiveness in Scotland | Page 163 | Scienza in rete

Effectiveness in Scotland

Primary tabs

Read time: 2 mins

The effectiveness of the pandemic H1N1 influenza vaccination program, introduced in Scotland in October 2009, has been assessed by a team of researchers from different Scottish and French institutions, coordinated by Dr. Colin Simpson, from the University of Edinburgh. The results of this assessment has been published in the June issue of Lancet.
The vaccination campaign consisted of two phases, the first being aimed at frontline health-care workers, pregnant women and people whose underlying health problems make them more sensitive to influenza-like illness; in the second phase, all children aged between 6 months and 5 years were targeted.
The researchers performed a retrospective study by linking primary care, hospital records and death certification datasets of 247178 persons, representing the 5% of Scottish population. Of them, 38296 (15.5%) were given the vaccination. In this nationally representative cohort there were fewer hospital admissions and deaths from influenza-like illness – influenza, pneumonia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and cardiac disorders – in patients who were vaccinated against H1N1 influenza A virus. A representative sub-group of patient was swabbed and tested with RT-PCR, revealing an estimated vaccine effectiveness of 77%. Such a result proved to be higher than recent estimates in case-control studies undertaken in the UK (72%) and Europe (71.9%) but lower than another one performed in Navarre, Spain (89%).
The study thus provided evidence that the Scottish H1N1 vaccination program have been effective, both in terms of protection against the virus and reduction of mortality from influenza-like illness, and is likely to have reduced the burden of pandemic influenza on health-care providers.

Autori: 
Sezioni: 
Dossier: 
H1N1 vaccine

prossimo articolo

Citazioni, h-index e highly cited: perché Clarivate, Scopus e Google Scholar non raccontano la stessa storia

disegno di metro su sfondo con neon

Tre database, tre misure diverse dello stesso fenomeno. Capire le differenze non è un dettaglio tecnico: è il presupposto per usare le metriche senza esserne ingannati.

Immaginate un ricercatore che deve comunicare il proprio h-index in una domanda di finanziamento. Apre Web of Science: il numero è, diciamo, 31. Apre Scopus: 38. Apre Google Scholar: 47. Tre piattaforme, tre numeri, nessuna contraddizione interna a ciascuna — eppure nessuna convergenza tra loro. Quale valore è quello “giusto”? La domanda è mal posta, e il disagio che genera è il punto di partenza di questo articolo.