↓ Skip to main content

Interventions for supporting pregnant women's decision-making about mode of birth after a caesarean

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
6 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
37 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
203 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
Interventions for supporting pregnant women's decision-making about mode of birth after a caesarean
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010041.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dell Horey, Michelle Kealy, Mary-Ann Davey, Rhonda Small, Caroline A Crowther

Abstract

Pregnant women who have previously had a caesarean birth and who have no contraindication for vaginal birth after caesarean (VBAC) may need to decide whether to choose between a repeat caesarean birth or to commence labour with the intention of achieving a VBAC. Women need information about their options and interventions designed to support decision-making may be helpful. Decision support interventions can be implemented independently, or shared with health professionals during clinical encounters or used in mediated social encounters with others, such as telephone decision coaching services. Decision support interventions can include decision aids, one-on-one counselling, group information or support sessions and decision protocols or algorithms. This review considers any decision support intervention for pregnant women making birth choices after a previous caesarean birth.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 203 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 3 1%
Brazil 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Unknown 198 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 39 19%
Researcher 39 19%
Student > Master 27 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 13%
Unspecified 19 9%
Other 53 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 90 44%
Unspecified 34 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 28 14%
Social Sciences 16 8%
Psychology 12 6%
Other 23 11%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 20 January 2017.
All research outputs
#3,371,408
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,813
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,859
of 98,774 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#66
of 121 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% 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 98,774 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 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 121 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.