↓ Skip to main content

Bed-sharing and unexpected infant deaths: what is the relationship?

Overview of attention for article published in Paediatric Respiratory Reviews, November 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#25 of 688)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
106 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
Bed-sharing and unexpected infant deaths: what is the relationship?
Published in
Paediatric Respiratory Reviews, November 2014
DOI 10.1016/j.prrv.2014.10.008
Pubmed ID
Authors

Peter Fleming, Anna Pease, Peter Blair

Abstract

For much of human history infant survival has been largely predicated by close and continuous contact between the infant and the primary carer - almost always the mother. Many factors in post-industrial human society - notably tobacco smoking, alcohol intake and the use of recreational drugs- have been associated with increased risk to infants sleeping in close proximity to their mothers. This is particularly true for mothers who choose not to breastfeed. The question of the risks and possible benefits of bed-sharing for mothers who plan to breastfeed, do not smoke, do not drink alcohol or take recreational drugs, and are aware of how to ensure a safe infant sleep environment need to be quantified. In this paper we review the evidence from several epidemiological studies and identify the factors that make bedsharing more or less hazardous for the infant. This analysis is important in allowing us to give parents accurate and unbiased information on which to make their own choices about optimal night time care of their infants without demonising normal parental behaviour or practices.

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 106 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Switzerland 2 2%
India 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Unknown 102 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 18 17%
Student > Master 17 16%
Researcher 11 10%
Student > Postgraduate 10 9%
Other 9 8%
Other 22 21%
Unknown 19 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 36 34%
Nursing and Health Professions 22 21%
Psychology 12 11%
Social Sciences 9 8%
Engineering 2 2%
Other 7 7%
Unknown 18 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 24. 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 25 March 2018.
All research outputs
#1,580,130
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Paediatric Respiratory Reviews
#25
of 688 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,195
of 275,904 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Paediatric Respiratory Reviews
#1
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 688 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 275,904 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.