| Title |
Assessing the effect of introducing a new method into family planning programs in India, Peru, and Rwanda
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Reproductive Health, September 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1742-4755-9-17 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Rebecka Lundgren, Irit Sinai, Priya Jha, Marie Mukabatsinda, Luisa Sacieta, Federico R León |
| Abstract |
Introducing a new method into family planning programs requires careful attention to ensure it meets an actual need and has a positive effect on program goals. The Standard Days Method® is a fertility awareness-based method of family planning that is being introduced into family planning programs in countries around the world. It is different from other methods offered by programs, and may bring new couples into family planning, and increase contraceptive prevalence. The study assesses the effect on contraceptive use and prevalence of Introducing Standard Days Method into existing family planning services in whole regions of India, Peru, and Rwanda. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 50% |
| Sri Lanka | 1 | 25% |
| Canada | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 124 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Bangladesh | 1 | <1% |
| Switzerland | 1 | <1% |
| Kenya | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Rwanda | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 119 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 29 | 23% |
| Researcher | 22 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 14 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 12 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 8 | 6% |
| Other | 14 | 11% |
| Unknown | 25 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 34 | 27% |
| Social Sciences | 29 | 23% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 13 | 10% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 3% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 3 | 2% |
| Other | 10 | 8% |
| Unknown | 31 | 25% |
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 27 February 2018.
All research outputs
#5,828,936
of 23,577,761 outputs
Outputs from Reproductive Health
#578
of 1,447 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#41,003
of 171,596 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Reproductive Health
#7
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,761 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 1,447 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% 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 171,596 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 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 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 58% of its contemporaries.