↓ Skip to main content

Schedules for home visits in the early postpartum period

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2017
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 (89th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (58th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
16 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
40 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
Schedules for home visits in the early postpartum period
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009326.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Naohiro Yonemoto, Therese Dowswell, Shuko Nagai, Rintaro Mori

Abstract

Maternal complications including psychological and mental health problems and neonatal morbidity have been commonly observed in the postpartum period. Home visits by health professionals or lay supporters in the weeks following the birth may prevent health problems from becoming chronic with long-term effects on women, their babies, and their families. To assess outcomes for women and babies of different home-visiting schedules during the early postpartum period. The review focuses on the frequency of home visits, the duration (when visits ended) and intensity, and on different types of home-visiting interventions. We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (28 January 2013) and reference lists of retrieved articles. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) (including cluster-RCTs) comparing different types of home-visiting interventions enrolling participants in the early postpartum period (up to 42 days after birth). We excluded studies in which women were enrolled and received an intervention during the antenatal period (even if the intervention continued into the postnatal period) and studies recruiting only women from specific high-risk groups. (e.g. women with alcohol or drug problems). Study eligibility was assessed by at least two review authors. Data extraction and assessment of risk of bias were carried out independently by at least two review authors. Data were entered into Review Manager software. We included data from 12 randomised trials with data for more than 11,000 women. The trials were carried out in countries across the world, and in both high- and low-resource settings. In low-resource settings women receiving usual care may have received no additional postnatal care after early hospital discharge.The interventions and control conditions varied considerably across studies with trials focusing on three broad types of comparisons: schedules involving more versus fewer postnatal home visits (five studies), schedules involving different models of care (three studies), and home versus hospital clinic postnatal check-ups (four studies). In all but two of the included studies, postnatal care at home was delivered by healthcare professionals. The aim of all interventions was broadly to assess the wellbeing of mothers and babies, and to provide education and support, although some interventions had more specific aims such as to encourage breastfeeding, or to provide practical support.For most of our outcomes only one or two studies provided data, and overall results were inconsistent.There was no evidence that home visits were associated with improvements in maternal and neonatal mortality, and no consistent evidence that more postnatal visits at home were associated with improvements in maternal health. More intensive schedules of home visits did not appear to improve maternal psychological health and results from two studies suggested that women receiving more visits had higher mean depression scores. The reason for this finding was not clear. In a cluster randomised trial comparing usual care with individualised care by midwives extended up to three months after the birth, the proportions of women with Edinburgh postnatal depression scale (EPDS) scores ≥ 13 at four months was reduced in the individualised care group (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.86). There was some evidence that postnatal care at home may reduce infant health service utilisation in the weeks following the birth, and that more home visits may encourage more women to exclusively breastfeed their babies. There was some evidence that home visits are associated with increased maternal satisfaction with postnatal care. Increasing the number of postnatal home visits may promote infant health and maternal satisfaction and more individualised care may improve outcomes for women, although overall findings in different studies were not consistent. The frequency, timing, duration and intensity of such postnatal care visits should be based upon local and individual needs. Further well designed RCTs evaluating this complex intervention will be required to formulate the optimal package.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 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 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 40 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 13%
Researcher 2 5%
Student > Postgraduate 1 3%
Student > Bachelor 1 3%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 29 73%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 5%
Social Sciences 1 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Unknown 29 73%

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 13 August 2018.
All research outputs
#755,133
of 12,485,011 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,190
of 8,725 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,911
of 263,498 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#60
of 145 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,485,011 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,725 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% 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 263,498 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 145 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its contemporaries.