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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Relationship between complementary and alternative medicine use and incidence of adverse birth outcomes: An examination of a nationally representative sample of 1835 Australian women
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Midwifery, March 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1016/j.midw.2014.03.015 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Amie Steel, Jon Adams, David Sibbritt, Alex Broom, Jane Frawley, Cindy Gallois |
| Abstract |
there is evidence of high use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) by pregnant women. Despite debate and controversy regarding CAM use in pregnancy there has been little research focus upon the impacts of CAM use on birth outcomes. This paper reports findings outlining the incidence of adverse birth outcomes among women accessing CAM during pregnancy. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 | 4 | 57% |
| United States | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 2 | 29% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 57% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 14% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 14% |
| Scientists | 1 | 14% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 213 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 212 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 35 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 31 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 18 | 8% |
| Other | 15 | 7% |
| Researcher | 14 | 7% |
| Other | 39 | 18% |
| Unknown | 61 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 57 | 27% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 43 | 20% |
| Psychology | 11 | 5% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 8 | 4% |
| Sports and Recreations | 5 | 2% |
| Other | 25 | 12% |
| Unknown | 64 | 30% |
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 22 December 2020.
All research outputs
#4,261,686
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Midwifery
#532
of 2,219 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#40,067
of 238,665 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Midwifery
#7
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 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 2,219 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% 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 238,665 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.