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 |
Plating up appropriate portion sizes for children: a systematic review of parental food and beverage portioning practices
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Obesity Reviews, August 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1111/obr.12727 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
L. Kairey, K. Matvienko‐Sikar, C. Kelly, M. C. McKinley, E. M. O'Connor, P. M. Kearney, J. V. Woodside, J. M. Harrington |
| Abstract |
Consumption of larger portion sizes is associated with higher energy intake and weight status in children. As parents play a pivotal role in child feeding, we synthesized literature on 'parental portioning practices' using a mixed methods systematic design to inform future strategies addressing portion sizes served to children. Electronic databases PubMed, EMBASE, SCOPUS, PsycINFO and CINAHL Plus were searched. Two reviewers independently screened 385 abstracts and assessed 71 full-text articles against eligibility criteria: studies assessing portioning of foods or beverages by parent(s) with ≥1 child aged 2-12 years. Narrative synthesis of 14 quantitative studies found that portion sizes parents serve vary substantially and are influenced by amounts parents serve themselves, perceived child hunger and parent and child body size. Thematic synthesis of 14 qualitative studies found that parents serve the portion sizes they learn to be appropriate for their child to be fed. Portioning is influenced by parents' desires for a healthy child with a balanced diet. Future guidance on appropriate portion sizes for children would ideally present recommended portion sizes for first serving, incremental with age. Future research is however needed to assess the adoption and efficacy of providing such guidance to families. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Ireland | 8 | 53% |
| Australia | 1 | 7% |
| New Zealand | 1 | 7% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 7% |
| United States | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 3 | 20% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 9 | 60% |
| Scientists | 4 | 27% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 13% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 72 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 72 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 12 | 17% |
| Researcher | 6 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 7% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 10 | 14% |
| Unknown | 22 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 13 | 18% |
| Psychology | 12 | 17% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 13% |
| Social Sciences | 6 | 8% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 6 | 8% |
| Unknown | 24 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. 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 04 March 2019.
All research outputs
#1,689,168
of 24,620,113 outputs
Outputs from Obesity Reviews
#615
of 2,024 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#35,193
of 339,454 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Obesity Reviews
#17
of 41 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,620,113 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 2,024 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 37.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% 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 339,454 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 41 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 60% of its contemporaries.