↓ Skip to main content

Trends in Indigenous and non‐Indigenous caesarean section births in the Northern Territory of Australia, 1986–2012: a total population‐based study

Overview of attention for article published in British Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
19 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
Trends in Indigenous and non‐Indigenous caesarean section births in the Northern Territory of Australia, 1986–2012: a total population‐based study
Published in
British Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, January 2016
DOI 10.1111/1471-0528.13881
Pubmed ID
Authors

F Thompson, K Dempsey, G Mishra

Abstract

To examine trends in caesarean section deliveries and factors associated with these trends for Indigenous and non-Indigenous mothers. Total population-based study. Northern Territory of Australia, 1986-2012. Pregnancies among Northern Territory residents, limited to singleton live births with cephalic presentations delivered at 37-42 weeks' gestation (n = 78 561). Descriptive analyses of demographic and obstetric risk factors. Poisson regression with robust variance to estimate the likelihood of caesarean delivery with and without labour compared with vaginal delivery, over time and between Indigenous and non-Indigenous mothers, adjusting for risk factors. Trends in caesarean sections and risk of caesarean delivery compared with vaginal delivery. The total rate of caesarean deliveries in the Northern Territory increased between 1986 and 2012. From the year 2000, the rise was driven by increases in caesareans with labour among nulliparous mothers and no labour caesareans among multiparous mothers. Increases in demographic and obstetric risk factors explained the rise in caesareans with labour among nulliparous Indigenous mothers, whereas other unmeasured variables contributed to the rise among non-Indigenous mothers. Increases in previous caesarean delivery contributed to the rise in all caesareans among multiparous mothers. Following adjustment, the risk of Indigenous nulliparous mothers having a caesarean with labour was 47% greater than for non-Indigenous nulliparous mothers [adjusted risk ratio 1.47 (95% CI 1.34-1.60)]. Increases in demographic and obstetric risk factors partially explained the increase in caesarean rates in the Northern Territory and the contribution of these factors differed between Indigenous and non-Indigenous mothers. Caesarean section rates increased between 1986 and 2012 in the Northern Territory of Australia.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 19 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 32%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 16%
Student > Bachelor 1 5%
Student > Master 1 5%
Student > Postgraduate 1 5%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 7 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 42%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 5%
Social Sciences 1 5%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 5%
Unknown 8 42%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 November 2019.
All research outputs
#6,223,387
of 25,411,814 outputs
Outputs from British Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology
#2,521
of 6,852 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#91,279
of 402,034 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology
#44
of 122 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,411,814 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,852 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% 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 402,034 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 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 122 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 63% of its contemporaries.