↓ Skip to main content

Rooming-in for new mother and infant versus separate care for increasing the duration of breastfeeding

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
2 blogs
policy
1 policy source
twitter
37 tweeters
facebook
5 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
174 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
Rooming-in for new mother and infant versus separate care for increasing the duration of breastfeeding
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd006641.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sharifah Halimah Jaafar, Jacqueline J Ho, Kim Seng Lee

Abstract

Mother-infant proximity and interactions after birth and during the early postpartum period are important for breast-milk production and breastfeeding success. Rooming-in and separate care are both traditional practices. Rooming-in involves keeping the mother and the baby together in the same room after birth for the duration of hospitalisation, whereas separate care is keeping the baby in the hospital nursery and the baby is either brought to the mother for breastfeeding or she walks to the nursery. To assess the effect of mother-infant rooming-in versus separation on the duration of breastfeeding (exclusive and total duration of breastfeeding). We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 May 2016) and reference lists of retrieved studies. Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the effect of mother-infant rooming-in versus separate care after hospital birth or at home on the duration of breastfeeding, proportion of breastfeeding at six months and adverse neonatal and maternal outcomes. Two review authors independently assessed the studies for inclusion and assessed trial quality. Two review authors extracted data. Data were checked for accuracy. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We included one trial (involving 176 women) in this review. This trial included four groups with a factorial design. The factorial design took into account two factors, i.e. infant location in relation to the mother and the type of infant apparel. We combined three of the groups as the intervention (rooming-in) group and the fourth group acted as the control (separate care) and we analysed the results as a single pair-wise comparison. Primary outcomesThe primary outcome, duration of any breastfeeding, was reported by authors as median values because the distribution was found to be skewed. They reported the overall median duration of any breastfeeding to be four months, with no difference found between groups. Duration of exclusive breastfeeding and the proportion of infants being exclusively breastfed at six months of age was not reported in the trial. There was no difference found between the two groups in the proportion of infants receiving any breastfeeding at six months of age (risk ratio (RR) 0.84, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.51 to 1.39; one trial; 137 women; low-quality evidence). Secondary outcomesThe mean frequency of breastfeeds per day on day four postpartum for the rooming-in group was 8.3 (standard deviation (SD) 2.2), slightly higher than the separate care group, i.e. seven times per day. However, between-group comparison of this outcome was not appropriate since every infant in the separate care group was breastfed at a fixed schedule of seven times per day (SD = 0) resulting in no estimable comparison. The rate of exclusive breastfeeding on day four postpartum before discharge from hospital was significantly higher in the rooming-in group 86% (99 of 115) compared with separate care group, 45% (17 of 38), (RR 1.92; 95% CI 1.34 to 2.76; one trial, 153 women; low-quality evidence). None of our other pre-specified secondary outcomes were reported. We found little evidence to support or refute the practice of rooming-in versus mother-infant separation. Further well-designed RCTs to investigate full mother-infant rooming-in versus partial rooming-in or separate care including all important outcomes are needed.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 37 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 174 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Ethiopia 1 <1%
Kenya 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Unknown 171 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 44 25%
Student > Bachelor 29 17%
Researcher 20 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 13 7%
Other 27 16%
Unknown 24 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 59 34%
Medicine and Dentistry 43 25%
Social Sciences 16 9%
Psychology 8 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 3%
Other 12 7%
Unknown 30 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 50. 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 09 November 2019.
All research outputs
#399,460
of 14,546,169 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,058
of 11,011 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,330
of 261,740 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#29
of 171 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,546,169 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,011 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 261,740 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 171 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.