↓ Skip to main content

Primary Spoken Language and Neuraxial Labor Analgesia Use Among Hispanic Medicaid Recipients

Overview of attention for article published in Anesthesia and analgesia, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
twitter
4 X users
guideline
1 clinical guideline source

Readers on

mendeley
68 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
Primary Spoken Language and Neuraxial Labor Analgesia Use Among Hispanic Medicaid Recipients
Published in
Anesthesia and analgesia, January 2016
DOI 10.1213/ane.0000000000001079
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Hispanic women are less likely than non-Hispanic Caucasian women to use neuraxial labor analgesia. It is unknown whether there is a disparity in anticipated or actual use of neuraxial labor analgesia among Hispanic women based on primary language (English versus Spanish). In this 3-year retrospective, single-institution, cross-sectional study, we extracted electronic medical record data on Hispanic nulliparous with vaginal deliveries who were insured by Medicaid. On admission, patients self-identified their primary language and anticipated analgesic use for labor. Extracted data included age, marital status, labor type, delivery provider (obstetrician or midwife), and anticipated and actual analgesic use. Household income was estimated from census data geocoded by zip code. Multivariable logistic regression models were estimated for anticipated and actual neuraxial analgesia use. Among 932 Hispanic women, 182 were self-identified as primary Spanish speakers. Spanish-speaking Hispanic women were less likely to anticipate and use neuraxial anesthesia than English-speaking women. After controlling for confounders, there was an association between primary language and anticipated neuraxial analgesia use (adjusted relative risk: Spanish- versus English-speaking women, 0.70; 97.5% confidence interval, 0.53-0.92). Similarly, there was an association between language and neuraxial analgesia use (adjusted relative risk: Spanish- versus English-speaking women 0.88; 97.5% confidence interval, 0.78-0.99). The use of a midwife compared with an obstetrician also decreased the likelihood of both anticipating and using neuraxial analgesia. A language-based disparity was found in neuraxial labor analgesia use. It is possible that there are communication barriers in knowledge or understanding of analgesic options. Further research is necessary to determine the cause of this association.

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.
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 demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 68 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Unknown 67 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 7 10%
Student > Master 6 9%
Student > Postgraduate 6 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 7%
Other 13 19%
Unknown 26 38%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 10%
Social Sciences 4 6%
Psychology 3 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Other 4 6%
Unknown 31 46%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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 24 April 2018.
All research outputs
#2,626,886
of 34,360,257 outputs
Outputs from Anesthesia and analgesia
#705
of 10,893 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#34,496
of 446,131 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Anesthesia and analgesia
#4
of 83 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,360,257 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,893 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 446,131 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 83 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 95% of its contemporaries.