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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Effect of a mobile phone-based intervention on post-abortion contraception: a randomized controlled trial in Cambodia
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Bulletin of the World Health Organization, October 2015
|
| DOI | 10.2471/blt.15.160267 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Chris Smith, Thoai D Ngo, Judy Gold, Phil Edwards, Uk Vannak, Ly Sokhey, Kazuyo Machiyama, Emma Slaymaker, Ruby Warnock, Ona McCarthy, Caroline Free |
| Abstract |
To assess the effect of a mobile phone-based intervention (mHealth) on post-abortion contraception use by women in Cambodia. The Mobile Technology for Improved Family Planning (MOTIF) study involved women who sought safe abortion services at four Marie Stopes International clinics in Cambodia. We randomly allocated 249 women to a mobile phone-based intervention, which comprised six automated, interactive voice messages with counsellor phone support, as required, whereas 251 women were allocated to a control group receiving standard care. The primary outcome was the self-reported use of an effective contraceptive method, 4 and 12 months after an abortion. Data on effective contraceptive use were available for 431 (86%) participants at 4 months and 328 (66%) at 12 months. Significantly more women in the intervention than the control group reported effective contraception use at 4 months (64% versus 46%, respectively; relative risk, RR: 1.39; 95% confidence interval, CI: 1.17-1.66) but not at 12 months (50% versus 43%, respectively; RR: 1.16; 95% CI: 0.92-1.47). However, significantly more women in the intervention group reported using a long-acting contraceptive method at both follow-up times. There was no significant difference between the groups in repeat pregnancies or abortions at 4 or 12 months. Adding a mobile phone-based intervention to abortion care services in Cambodia had a short-term effect on the overall use of any effective contraception, while the use of long-acting contraceptive methods lasted throughout the study period. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 98 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 98 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 2% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 2% |
| Researcher | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 93 | 95% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 4% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 93 | 95% |
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 29 May 2019.
All research outputs
#8,783,469
of 25,986,827 outputs
Outputs from Bulletin of the World Health Organization
#83
of 286 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#100,493
of 292,121 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Bulletin of the World Health Organization
#15
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,986,827 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 286 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% 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 292,121 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 54% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.