↓ Skip to main content

Recurrent episodes of injury in children: an Australian cohort study

Overview of attention for article published in Australian Health Review, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Readers on

mendeley
34 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.
Article details
Title
Recurrent episodes of injury in children: an Australian cohort study
Published in
Australian Health Review, August 2016
DOI 10.1071/ah15193
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Objective The aim of the present study was to compare sociodemographic characteristics of children with single versus recurrent episodes of injury and provide contemporary evidence for Australian injury prevention policy development.Methods Participants were identified from the Environments for Healthy Living: Griffith Birth Cohort Study 2006-11 (n=2692). Demographic data were linked to the child's hospital emergency and admissions data from birth to December 2013. Data were dichotomised in two ways: (1) injured or non-injured; and (2) single or recurrent episodes of injury. Multivariate logistic regression was used for analysis.Results The adjusted model identified two factors significantly associated with recurrent episodes of injury in children aged <3 years. Children born to mothers <25 years were almost fourfold more likely to have recurrent episodes of injury compared with children of mothers aged ≥35 years (adjusted odds ratio (aOR)=3.68; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.44-9.39) and, as a child's age at first injury increased, odds of experiencing recurrent episodes of injury decreased (aOR=0.97; 95% CI 0.94-0.99). No differences were found in sociodemographic characteristics of children aged 3-7 years with single versus recurrent episodes of injury (P>0.1).Conclusion National priorities should include targeted programs addressing the higher odds of recurrent episodes of injury experienced by children aged <3 years with younger mothers or those injured in the first 18 months of life.What is known about the topic? Children who experience recurrent episodes of injury are at greater risk of serious or irrecoverable harm, particularly when repeat trauma occurs in the early years of life.What does the paper add? The present study identifies key factors associated with recurrent episodes of injury in young Australian children. This is imperative to inform evidence-based national injury prevention policy development in line with the recent expiry of the National Injury Prevention and Safety Promotion Plan: 2004-2014.What are the implications for practitioners? Injury prevention efforts need to target the increased injury risk experienced by families from lower socioeconomic backgrounds and, as a priority, children under 3 years of age with younger mothers and children who are injured in the first 18 months of life. These families require access to education programs, resources, equipment and support, particularly in the child's early years. These programs could be provided as part of the routine paediatric and child health visits available to families after their child's birth or incorporated into hospital and general practitioner injury treatment plans.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 34 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 12%
Other 3 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 9%
Student > Master 3 9%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 14 41%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 18%
Social Sciences 4 12%
Psychology 3 9%
Philosophy 1 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 17 50%
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 04 October 2017.
All research outputs
#18,456,318
of 29,811,332 outputs
Outputs from Australian Health Review
#808
of 1,214 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#178,478
of 322,215 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Australian Health Review
#17
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 29,811,332 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,214 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% 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 322,215 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.