↓ Skip to main content

A Qualitative Study of Gestational Weight Gain Counseling and Tracking

Overview of attention for article published in Maternal and Child Health Journal, October 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
87 Mendeley
Title
A Qualitative Study of Gestational Weight Gain Counseling and Tracking
Published in
Maternal and Child Health Journal, October 2012
DOI 10.1007/s10995-012-1158-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Emily Oken, Karen Switkowski, Sarah Price, Lauren Guthrie, Elsie M. Taveras, Matthew Gillman, Jonathan Friedes, William Callaghan, Patricia Dietz

Abstract

Excessive gestational weight gain (GWG) predicts adverse pregnancy outcomes and later obesity risk for both mother and child. Women who receive GWG advice from their obstetric clinicians are more likely to gain the recommended amount, but many clinicians do not counsel their patients on GWG, pointing to the need for new strategies. Electronic medical records (EMRs) are a useful tool for tracking weight and supporting guideline-concordant care, but their use for care related to GWG has not been evaluated. We performed in-depth interviews with 16 obstetric clinicians from a multi-site group practice in Massachusetts that uses an EMR. We recorded, transcribed, coded, and analyzed the interviews using immersion-crystallization. Many respondents believed that GWG had "a lot" of influence on pregnancy and child health outcomes but that their patients did not consider it important. Most indicated that excessive GWG was a big or moderate problem in their practice, and that inadequate GWG was rarely a problem. All used an EMR feature that calculates total GWG at each visit. Many were enthusiastic about additional EMR-based supports, such as a reference for recommended GWG for each patient based on pre-pregnancy body mass index, a "growth chart" to plot actual and recommended GWG, and an alert to identify out-of-range gains, features which many felt would remind them to counsel patients about excessive weight gain. Additional decision support tools within EMRs would be well received by many clinicians and may help improve the frequency and accuracy of GWG tracking and counseling.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 87 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 3 3%
Bangladesh 1 1%
United Kingdom 1 1%
Unknown 82 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 16 18%
Researcher 11 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 11%
Student > Bachelor 10 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 9%
Other 14 16%
Unknown 18 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 21%
Psychology 13 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 14%
Social Sciences 9 10%
Computer Science 4 5%
Other 10 11%
Unknown 21 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 December 2014.
All research outputs
#16,223,992
of 23,906,448 outputs
Outputs from Maternal and Child Health Journal
#1,433
of 2,039 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#111,864
of 176,248 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Maternal and Child Health Journal
#25
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,906,448 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,039 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 176,248 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 39 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.