↓ Skip to main content

Giving women their own case notes to carry during pregnancy

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2015
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 (84th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
10 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
138 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
Giving women their own case notes to carry during pregnancy
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd002856.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Heather C Brown, Helen J Smith, Rintaro Mori, Hisashi Noma

Abstract

In many countries women are given their own case notes to carry during pregnancy to increase their sense of control over, and satisfaction with, their care. To evaluate the effects of giving women their own case notes to carry during pregnancy. We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 August 2015) and reference lists of retrieved studies. Randomised controlled trials of women given their own case notes to carry during pregnancy. Two review authors independently applied the inclusion criteria and assessed study quality. One review author extracted data from the included studies using a standard form (checked by second review author). We assessed estimates of effect using risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). The quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. Four trials were included (n = 1176 women). Overall, the quality of the evidence was graded as low to moderate mainly due to the nature of the intervention not allowing blinding. The updated search identified one cluster-randomised trial, which was included.Women carrying their own notes were more likely to feel in control (two trials, RR 1.56, 95% CI 1.18 to 2.06; 450 women; moderate quality evidence), although there is no evidence of difference in women's satisfaction (two trials, average RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.29); 698 women; low quality evidence). More women in the case notes group wanted to carry their own notes in a subsequent pregnancy (three trials, RR 1.79, 95% CI 1.57 to 2.03; 552 women; low quality evidence). Overall, the pooled estimate of the two trials (n = 347) that reported on the risk of notes lost or left at home was not significant (average RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.04 to 3.84). There was no evidence of difference for health-related behaviours (cigarette smoking and breastfeeding (moderate quality evidence)), analgesia needs during labour (low quality evidence), maternal depression, miscarriage, stillbirth and neonatal deaths (moderate quality evidence). More women in the case notes group had operative deliveries (one trial, RR 1.83, 95% CI 1.08 to 3.12; 212 women), and caesarean sections (one trial, average RR 1.51, 95% CI 1.10 to 2.08; 501 women; moderate quality evidence). The four trials are small, and not all of them reported on all outcomes. The results suggest that there are both potential benefits (increased maternal control and increased availability of antenatal records during hospital attendance) and harms (more operative deliveries). Importantly, all of the trials report that more women in the case notes group would prefer to carry their antenatal records in another pregnancy. There is insufficient evidence on health-related behaviours (smoking and breastfeeding), women's satisfaction, and clinical outcomes. It is important to emphasise that this review shows a lack of evidence of benefit rather than evidence of no benefit.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 138 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Unknown 135 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 25 18%
Researcher 25 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 14%
Student > Bachelor 17 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 9%
Other 21 15%
Unknown 19 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 38 28%
Psychology 24 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 12%
Social Sciences 11 8%
Chemistry 4 3%
Other 21 15%
Unknown 24 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 23 February 2017.
All research outputs
#1,572,226
of 13,038,232 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,247
of 10,445 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,733
of 252,219 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#156
of 270 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,038,232 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,445 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.5. 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 252,219 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 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 270 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.