↓ Skip to main content

Back to normal: A retrospective, cross-sectional study of the multi-factorial determinants of normal birth in Queensland, Australia

Overview of attention for article published in Midwifery, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
23 X users
facebook
16 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
111 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
Back to normal: A retrospective, cross-sectional study of the multi-factorial determinants of normal birth in Queensland, Australia
Published in
Midwifery, April 2015
DOI 10.1016/j.midw.2015.04.005
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yvette D. Miller, Samantha J. Prosser, Rachel Thompson

Abstract

currently, care providers and policy-makers internationally are working to promote normal birth. In Australia, such initiatives are being implemented without any evidence of the prevalence or determinants of normal birth as a multidimensional construct. This study aimed to better understand the determinants of normal birth (defined as without induction of labour, epidural/spinal/general anaesthesia, forceps/vacuum, caesarean birth, or episiotomy) using secondary analyses of data from a population survey of women in Queensland, Australia. women who birthed in Queensland during a two-week period in 2009 were mailed a survey approximately three months after birth. Women (n=772) provided retrospective data on their pregnancy, labour and birth preferences and experiences, socio-demographic characteristics, and reproductive history. A series of logistic regressions were conducted to determine factors associated with having labour, having a vaginal birth, and having a normal birth. overall, 81.9% of women had labour, 66.4% had a vaginal birth, and 29.6% had a normal birth. After adjusting for other significant factors, women had significantly higher odds of having labour if they birthed in a public hospital and had a pre-existing preference for a vaginal birth. Of women who had labour, 80.8% had a vaginal birth. Women who had labour had significantly higher odds of having a vaginal birth if they attended antenatal classes, did not have continuous fetal monitoring, felt able to 'take their time' in labour, and had a pre-existing preference for a vaginal birth. Of women who had a vaginal birth, 44.7% had a normal birth. Women who had a vaginal birth had significantly higher odds of having a normal birth if they birthed in a public hospital, birthed outside regular business hours, had mobility in labour, did not have continuous fetal monitoring, and were non-supine during birth. these findings provide a strong foundation on which to base resources aimed at increasing informed decision-making for maternity care consumers, providers, and policy-makers alike. Research to evaluate the impact of modifying key clinical practices (e.g., supporting women׳s mobility during labour, facilitating non-supine positioning during birth) on the likelihood of a normal birth is an important next step.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 23 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 111 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 109 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 18 16%
Student > Master 15 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 13%
Researcher 9 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 6 5%
Other 21 19%
Unknown 28 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 28 25%
Medicine and Dentistry 18 16%
Social Sciences 7 6%
Psychology 5 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 3%
Other 14 13%
Unknown 36 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 29. 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 09 November 2015.
All research outputs
#1,330,183
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Midwifery
#155
of 2,219 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,589
of 278,659 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Midwifery
#4
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% 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 particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 278,659 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.