↓ Skip to main content

Systematic review to understand and improve care after stillbirth: a review of parents’ and healthcare professionals’ experiences

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
40 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
201 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
491 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
Systematic review to understand and improve care after stillbirth: a review of parents’ and healthcare professionals’ experiences
Published in
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, January 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12884-016-0806-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alison Ellis, Caroline Chebsey, Claire Storey, Stephanie Bradley, Sue Jackson, Vicki Flenady, Alexander Heazell, Dimitrios Siassakos

Abstract

2.7 million babies were stillborn in 2015 worldwide; behind these statistics lie the experiences of bereaved parents. The first Lancet series on stillbirth in 2011 described stillbirth as one of the "most shamefully neglected" areas of public health, recommended improving interaction between families and frontline caregivers and made a plea for increased investment in relevant research. A systematic review of qualitative, quantitative and mixed-method studies researching parents and healthcare professionals experiences of care after stillbirth in high-income westernised countries (Europe, North America, Australia and South Africa) was conducted. The review was designed to inform research, training and improve care for parents who experience stillbirth. Four thousand four hundred eighty eight abstracts were identified; 52 studies were eligible for inclusion. Synthesis and quantitative aggregation (meta-summary) was used to extract findings and calculate frequency effect sizes (FES%) for each theme (shown in italics), a measure of the prevalence of that finding in the included studies. Researchers' areas of interest may influence reporting of findings in the literature and result in higher FES sizes, such as; support memory making (53 %) and fathers have different needs (18 %). Other parental findings were more unexpected; Parents want increased public awareness (20 %) and for stillbirth care to be prioritised (5 %). Parental findings highlighted lessons for staff; prepare parents for vaginal birth (23 %), discuss concerns (13 %), give options & time (20 %), privacy not abandonment (30 %), tailored post-mortem discussions (20 %) and post-natal information (30 %). Parental and staff findings were often related; behaviours and actions of staff have a memorable impact on parents (53 %) whilst staff described emotional, knowledge and system-based barriers to providing effective care (100 %). Parents reported distress being caused by midwives hiding behind 'doing' and ritualising guidelines whilst staff described distancing themselves from parents and focusing on tasks as coping strategies. Parents and staff both identified the need for improved training (parents 25 % & staff 57 %); continuity of care (parents 15 % & staff 36 %); supportive systems & structures (parents 50 %); and clear care pathways (parents 5 %). Parents' and healthcare workers' experiences of stillbirth can inform training, improve the provision of care and highlight areas for future research.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 40 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 491 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 <1%
New Zealand 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 486 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 86 18%
Student > Master 76 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 40 8%
Researcher 32 7%
Student > Postgraduate 23 5%
Other 84 17%
Unknown 150 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 144 29%
Medicine and Dentistry 65 13%
Psychology 48 10%
Social Sciences 25 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 2%
Other 41 8%
Unknown 160 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 44. 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 10 July 2020.
All research outputs
#963,738
of 25,726,194 outputs
Outputs from BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
#180
of 4,850 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#17,056
of 407,653 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
#4
of 67 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,726,194 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,850 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 407,653 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 67 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.