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 |
Barriers to translating evidence‐based breastfeeding information into practice
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Acta Paediatrica, January 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1111/j.1651-2227.2010.02108.x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Wendy Brodribb |
| Abstract |
There is strong evidence that using breastmilk substitutes disadvantages the infant, mother and community as a whole. There is also increasing evidence regarding the lactation process, breastfeeding inhibitors and enablers, and breastfeeding management options. However, there appears to be a gap between this evidence base and practice with breastfeeding rates being unacceptably low, especially following hospital discharge. This paper discusses barriers to the implementation of breastfeeding best practice using a framework of the research-to-practice pipeline: acceptance, applicable, available and able, acted upon, agreed to and adhered to. As blocks or restrictions to the flow of information or evidence may occur at any point along the pathway, researchers designing interventions to increase breastfeeding rates need to consider using multi-strategy interventions and target collaborative care across professions. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| South Africa | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 80 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 3% |
| Spain | 1 | 1% |
| Peru | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 76 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 11 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 8 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 8 | 10% |
| Researcher | 6 | 8% |
| Other | 18 | 23% |
| Unknown | 20 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 21 | 26% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 14 | 18% |
| Social Sciences | 7 | 9% |
| Psychology | 4 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 7 | 9% |
| Unknown | 24 | 30% |
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 26 January 2015.
All research outputs
#14,684,573
of 24,627,841 outputs
Outputs from Acta Paediatrica
#3,614
of 5,649 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#143,664
of 190,861 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Acta Paediatrica
#19
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,627,841 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,649 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.1. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% 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 190,861 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.