| Title |
Complementary Feeding: Critical Considerations to Optimize Growth, Nutrition, and Feeding Behavior
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Current Pediatrics Reports, October 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s40124-013-0030-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Bridget E. Young, Nancy F. Krebs |
| Abstract |
This review focuses on complementary feeding (CF) in westernized settings where primary health concerns are risk of obesity and micronutrient inadequacy. The current evidence is reviewed for: (1) when CF should be introduced, (2) what foods (nutrients and food types) should be prioritized and avoided, and (3) how the infant should be fed. Special attention is paid to the underlying physiological differences between breast- and formula-fed infants that often result in distinctly different nutritional and health risks. This difference is particularly acute in the case of micronutrient inadequacy, specifically iron and zinc, but is also relevant to optimal energy and macronutrient intakes. Emphasis is placed on the complex interplay among infants' early dietary exposures; relatively high energy and nutrient requirements; rapid physical, social and emotional development; and the feeding environment-all of which interact to impact health outcomes. This complexity needs to be considered at both individual and population levels and in both clinical and research settings. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 99 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 2% |
| Peru | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 96 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 18 | 18% |
| Student > Bachelor | 15 | 15% |
| Researcher | 8 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 8 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 7% |
| Other | 17 | 17% |
| Unknown | 26 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 28 | 28% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 18 | 18% |
| Social Sciences | 6 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 4% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 8 | 8% |
| Unknown | 31 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 23 October 2013.
All research outputs
#14,180,180
of 22,727,570 outputs
Outputs from Current Pediatrics Reports
#50
of 84 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#118,135
of 210,725 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Pediatrics Reports
#3
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,727,570 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 84 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% 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 210,725 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.