↓ Skip to main content

The Neonatal Behavioral Assessment Scale (NBAS) and Newborn Behavioral Observations (NBO) system for supporting caregivers and improving outcomes in caregivers and their infants

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 tweeters
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
193 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
The Neonatal Behavioral Assessment Scale (NBAS) and Newborn Behavioral Observations (NBO) system for supporting caregivers and improving outcomes in caregivers and their infants
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2018
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011754.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jane Barlow, Nadeeja INS Herath, Christine Bartram Torrance, Cathy Bennett, Yinghui Wei

Abstract

The first three years of a child's life are a key period of physical, physiological, cognitive and social development, and the caregiver-infant relationship in early infancy plays an important role in influencing these aspects of development. Specifically, caregiver attunement facilitates the move from coregulation to self-regulation; a parent's ability to understand their infant's behaviour as communication is a key part of this process. Early, brief interventions such as the Neonatal Behavioral Assessment Scale (NBAS) or Neonatal Behavioral Observation (NBO) system are potential methods of improving outcomes for both infant and caregiver. To assess the effects of the NBAS and NBO system for improving caregiver-infant interaction and related outcomes in caregivers and newborn babies. Secondary objectives were to determine whether the NBAS and NBO are more effective for particular groups of infants or parents, and to identify the factors associated with increased effectiveness (e.g. timing, duration, etc.). In September 2017 we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, 12 other databases and four trials registers. We also handsearched reference lists of included studies and relevant systematic reviews, and we contacted the Brazelton Institute and searched its websites to identify any ongoing and unpublished studies. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs that had used at least one standardised measure to assess the effects of the NBAS or NBO versus inactive control for improving outcomes for caregivers and their infants. Two reviewer authors independently assessed the records retrieved from the search. One reviewer extracted data, and a second checked them for accuracy. We presented the results for each outcome in each study as standardised mean differences (SMDs) or as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). When appropriate, we combined the results in a meta-analysis using standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We used the GRADE approach to assess the overall quality of the body of evidence for each outcome. We identified and included 16 RCTs in this review: 13 assessing the NBAS and 3 the NBO for improving outcomes in 851 randomised participants, including parents and their premature or newborn (aged 4 to 12 weeks) infants. All studies took place in the USA, and we judged all of them to be at high risk of bias.Seven studies involving 304 participants contributed data to one meta-analysis of the impact of the NBAS or NBO for caregiver-infant interaction, and the results suggest a significant, medium-sized difference between intervention and control groups (SMD -0.53, 95% CI -0.90 to -0.17; very low-quality evidence), with moderate heterogeneity (I2= 51%). Subgroup analysis comparing the two types of programmes (i.e. NBAS and NBO) found a medium but non-significant effect for the NBAS (-0.49, 95% CI -0.99 to 0.00, 5 studies), with high levels of heterogeneity (I2= 61%), compared with a significant, large effect size for the NBO (-0.69, 95% CI -1.18 to -0.20, 2 studies), with no heterogeneity (I2= 0.0%). A test for subgroup differences between the two models, however, was not significant. One study found a significant impact on the secondary outcome of caregiver knowledge (SMD -1.30, 95% CI -2.16 to -0.44; very low-quality evidence). There was no evidence of an impact on maternal depression. We did not identify any adverse effects. There is currently only very low-quality evidence for the effectiveness of the NBAS and NBO in terms of improving parent-infant interaction for mostly low-risk, first-time caregivers and their infants. Further research is underway regarding the effectiveness of the NBO and is necessary to corroborate these results.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 193 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 193 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 35 18%
Student > Master 31 16%
Student > Bachelor 21 11%
Researcher 17 9%
Student > Postgraduate 13 7%
Other 33 17%
Unknown 43 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 33 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 28 15%
Psychology 24 12%
Social Sciences 15 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 3%
Other 29 15%
Unknown 59 31%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 25 June 2020.
All research outputs
#3,774,848
of 15,909,178 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,175
of 11,323 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#80,455
of 281,011 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#144
of 202 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,909,178 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,323 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.4. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% 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 281,011 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 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 202 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.