↓ Skip to main content

Tensiones y contradicciones en la intervención gubernamental para la promoción de la lactancia materna

Overview of attention for article published in Salud colectiva, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
20 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
Tensiones y contradicciones en la intervención gubernamental para la promoción de la lactancia materna
Published in
Salud colectiva, December 2017
DOI 10.18294/sc.2017.1357
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rosa María Ramos Rodríguez, María Gabriela Hernández González

Abstract

With the purpose of shedding light on the decrease in the practice of breastfeeding in rural areas of Mexico, this article looks at the current biomedical model and the policies and actions to promote breastfeeding derived from the model's theoretical approach. The article also discusses operational strategies of the governmental social welfare program Oportunidades. For this purpose, the study utilizes the testimonies of 39 young breastfeeding mothers, 11 mothers and grandmothers and 12 members of the health staff in the Nahuatl population of Cuentepec, Morelos, Mexico, which were collected during a previous study in 2008 and 2009. It was found that the biomedical model, which permeates all actions to promote breastfeeding, reifies people, limits communication, devaluates women's traditional knowledge and imposes a discourse that gradually discourages the practice of breastfeeding. The article's proposal is to adopt an epistemic change in biomedical thought that shifts from a paradigm of simplicity to one of complexity, with the purpose of achieving a greater understanding of the bio-psycho-socio-cultural processes of human beings.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 20 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 30%
Researcher 1 5%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 5%
Student > Postgraduate 1 5%
Unknown 11 55%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 2 10%
Arts and Humanities 1 5%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 13 65%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 05 June 2018.
All research outputs
#17,032,385
of 25,806,080 outputs
Outputs from Salud colectiva
#153
of 272 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#268,641
of 446,365 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Salud colectiva
#7
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,806,080 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 272 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 446,365 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.