↓ Skip to main content

Parental experiences and perceptions of infant complementary feeding: a qualitative evidence synthesis

Overview of attention for article published in Obesity Reviews, December 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 (88th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (61st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
25 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
63 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
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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 25 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 63 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 63 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 11 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 17%
Student > Master 7 11%
Student > Bachelor 6 10%
Other 4 6%
Other 13 21%
Unknown 11 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 16 25%
Medicine and Dentistry 15 24%
Psychology 4 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 6%
Social Sciences 4 6%
Other 7 11%
Unknown 13 21%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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
#1,284,052
of 15,569,128 outputs
Outputs from Obesity Reviews
#504
of 1,516 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#48,230
of 407,904 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Obesity Reviews
#13
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,569,128 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,516 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 26.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% 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 407,904 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 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 61% of its contemporaries.