↓ Skip to main content

Mothers’ Process of Decision Making for Gastrostomy Placement

Overview of attention for article published in Qualitative Health Research, September 2011
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
33 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
Mothers’ Process of Decision Making for Gastrostomy Placement
Published in
Qualitative Health Research, September 2011
DOI 10.1177/1049732311423841
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ailsa Brotherton, Janice Abbott

Abstract

In this article we present the findings of an exploration of mothers' discourses on decision making for gastrostomy placement for their child. Exploring in-depth interviews of a purposive sample, we analyzed the mothers' discourses of the decision-making process to understand how their experiences of the process influenced their subsequent constructions of decision making. Mothers negotiated decision making by reflecting on their personal experiences of feeding their child, either orally or via a tube, and interwove their background experiences with the communications from members of the health care team until a decision was reached. Decision making was often fraught with difficulty, resulting in anxiety and guilt. Experiences of decision making ranged from perceived coercion to true choice, which encompasses a truly child-centered decision. The resulting impact of the decision-making process on the mothers was profound. We conclude with an exploration of the implications for clinical practice and describe how health care professionals can support mothers to ensure that decision-making processes for gastrostomy placement in children are significantly improved.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 3%
Norway 1 3%
Unknown 31 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 18%
Student > Master 6 18%
Student > Bachelor 4 12%
Other 3 9%
Student > Postgraduate 3 9%
Other 11 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 27%
Psychology 7 21%
Social Sciences 5 15%
Unspecified 4 12%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 6%
Other 6 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 April 2012.
All research outputs
#9,985,704
of 12,475,053 outputs
Outputs from Qualitative Health Research
#1,011
of 1,209 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#82,811
of 117,276 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Qualitative Health Research
#13
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,475,053 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,209 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% 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 117,276 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.