↓ Skip to main content

Critical defining characteristics for nursing diagnosis about ineffective breastfeeding

Overview of attention for article published in Revista Brasileira de Enfermagem, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
51 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
Critical defining characteristics for nursing diagnosis about ineffective breastfeeding
Published in
Revista Brasileira de Enfermagem, April 2018
DOI 10.1590/0034-7167-2016-0549
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sandra Cristina de Alvarenga, Denise Silveira de Castro, Franciéle Marabotti Costa Leite, Telma Ribeiro Garcia, Marcos Antônio Gomes Brandão, Cândida Caniçali Primo

Abstract

To investigate the Nursing diagnostic accuracy measures and to propose a model to use defining characteristics in order to judge the nursing diagnosis of ineffective breastfeeding. Cross-sectional study with a sample of 73 binomials mom-child hospitalized in a maternity ward of an University Hospital, from July to August of 2014. The diagnostic predominance rate was 58.9%. The characteristics that best meet the needs of logistic regression model were: discontinuance of breast sucking; infant's inability of seizing the areola-nipple region correctly; infant's crying one hour after breastfeeding and inappropriate milk supply perceived. Breastfeeding process is dynamic; diagnostic judgement may suffer some changes according to the time data are collected; the defining characteristics are the best predictors if associated with models and rules of use.

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 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 51 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 10%
Other 3 6%
Student > Bachelor 3 6%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 6%
Other 9 18%
Unknown 23 45%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 21 41%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Mathematics 1 2%
Social Sciences 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 23 45%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 15 May 2018.
All research outputs
#14,479,843
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Revista Brasileira de Enfermagem
#148
of 736 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#169,041
of 343,807 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Revista Brasileira de Enfermagem
#4
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 736 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 343,807 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 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.