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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Parental experiences and perceptions of infant complementary feeding: a qualitative evidence synthesis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Obesity Reviews, December 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1111/obr.12653 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
K. Matvienko‐Sikar, C. Kelly, C. Sinnott, J. McSharry, C. Houghton, C. Heary, E. Toomey, M. Byrne, P. M. Kearney |
| Abstract |
Interventions to prevent childhood obesity increasingly focus on infant feeding, but demonstrate inconsistent effects. A comprehensive qualitative evidence synthesis is essential to better understand feeding behaviours and inform intervention development. The aim of this study is to synthesize evidence on perceptions and experiences of infant feeding and complementary feeding recommendations. Databases CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Academic Search Complete, SocIndex and Maternity and Infant Care were searched from inception to May 2017. Eligible studies examined parents' experiences of complementary feeding of children (<2 years). Data were synthesized using thematic synthesis. Twenty-five studies met inclusion criteria for review. Four key themes emerged. 'Guidelines and advice' highlights variety and inconsistencies between sources of complementary feeding information. 'Stage of weaning' describes infant feeding as a process involving different stages. 'Knowing and trying' outlines parents' engagement in feeding approaches based on instinct, prior experience or trial and error. 'Daily life' highlights problematic cost and time constraints for parents. Parents predominantly understand and want to engage in healthy feeding processes. Consideration of infant feeding as a process that changes over time is necessary to support parents. Provision of clear, consistent information and guidance from trusted sources on when, what and how to feed is also essential. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 23 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Ireland | 14 | 61% |
| United Kingdom | 3 | 13% |
| Germany | 1 | 4% |
| Australia | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 4 | 17% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 14 | 61% |
| Scientists | 5 | 22% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 4 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 143 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 143 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 18 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 16 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 15 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 11 | 8% |
| Researcher | 9 | 6% |
| Other | 29 | 20% |
| Unknown | 45 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 31 | 22% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 28 | 20% |
| Social Sciences | 8 | 6% |
| Psychology | 7 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 4% |
| Other | 15 | 10% |
| Unknown | 48 | 34% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 22 December 2017.
All research outputs
#2,529,708
of 24,875,286 outputs
Outputs from Obesity Reviews
#816
of 2,032 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#55,290
of 451,242 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Obesity Reviews
#16
of 43 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,875,286 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,032 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 37.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% 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 451,242 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 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 43 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 65% of its contemporaries.