↓ Skip to main content

Does model of maternity care make a difference to birth outcomes for young women? A retrospective cohort study

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Nursing Studies, 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 (81st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
10 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
182 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
Does model of maternity care make a difference to birth outcomes for young women? A retrospective cohort study
Published in
International Journal of Nursing Studies, April 2015
DOI 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2015.04.011
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jyai Allen, Kristen Gibbons, Michael Beckmann, Mark Tracy, Helen Stapleton, Sue Kildea

Abstract

Adolescent pregnancy is associated with adverse outcomes including preterm birth, admission to the neonatal intensive care unit, low birth weight infants, and artificial feeding. To determine if caseload midwifery or young women's clinic are associated with improved perinatal outcomes when compared to standard care. A retrospective cohort study. A tertiary Australian hospital where routine maternity care is delivered alongside two community-based maternity care models specifically for young women aged 21 years or less: caseload midwifery (known midwife) and young women's clinic (rostered midwife). All pregnant women aged 21 years or less, with a singleton pregnancy, who attended a minimum of two antenatal visits, and who birthed a baby (without congenital abnormality) at the study hospital during May 2008 to December 2012. Caseload midwifery and young women's clinic were each compared to standard maternity care, but not with each other, for four primary outcomes: preterm birth (<37 weeks gestation), low birth weight infants (<2500g), neonatal intensive care unit admission, and breastfeeding initiation. Two analyses were performed on the primary outcomes to examine potential associations between maternity care type and perinatal outcomes: intention-to-treat (model of care at booking) and treatment-received (model of care on admission for labour/birth). 1908 births were analysed by intention-to-treat and treatment-received analyses. Young women allocated to caseload care at booking, compared to standard care, were less likely to have a preterm birth (adjusted odds ratio 0.59 (0.38-0.90, p=0.014)) or a neonatal intensive care unit admission adjusted odds ratio 0.42 (0.22-0.82, p=0.010). Rates of low birth weight infants and breastfeeding initiation were similar between caseload and standard care participants. Participants allocated to young women's clinic at booking, compared to standard care, were less likely to have a low birth weight infant adjusted odds ratio 0.49 (0.24-1.00, p=0.049), however when analysed by treatment-received, this finding was not significant. There was no difference in the other primary outcomes. Young women who were allocated to caseload midwifery at booking, and/or were receiving caseload midwifery at the time of admission for birth, were less likely to experience preterm birth and neonatal intensive care unit admission.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 182 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Indonesia 1 <1%
Unknown 181 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 47 26%
Student > Master 27 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 10%
Researcher 10 5%
Lecturer 5 3%
Other 24 13%
Unknown 51 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 73 40%
Medicine and Dentistry 27 15%
Social Sciences 10 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 3%
Arts and Humanities 2 1%
Other 9 5%
Unknown 56 31%
Attention Score in Context

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 21 December 2023.
All research outputs
#4,207,219
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Nursing Studies
#624
of 2,585 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#50,706
of 279,912 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Nursing Studies
#16
of 48 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 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 2,585 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% 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 279,912 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 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 48 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.