↓ Skip to main content

“Ebinyo”—The Practice of Infant Oral Mutilation in Uganda

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Public Health, July 2017
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)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
48 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
“Ebinyo”—The Practice of Infant Oral Mutilation in Uganda
Published in
Frontiers in Public Health, July 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpubh.2017.00167
Pubmed ID
Authors

Margaret N. Wandera, Betsy Kasumba

Abstract

Infant oral mutilation (IOM) is a traditional method of extracting un-erupted teeth practiced in several Sub-Saharan African countries including Uganda. This practice is referred to as "ebinyo" by Bantu-speaking Ethnic groups, though it has several terms depending on cultural group and researcher. The un-erupted tooth is gouged out as a cure for medical symptoms in infants that include high fevers and diarrhea. The spreading of IOM practice in African populations is blamed on poor health literacy with regard to the common childhood illnesses. One study in Uganda revealed that adverse cases following IOM seen in the hospital peaked in tandem with the malaria and diarrheal disease cases. This paper is a review of the practice with a particular focus on Uganda as presented in literature compiled from PubMed, Dentaid, Google Scholar, Local Uganda sources, and the authors' observations. The paper explains reason for the persistence of the practice, and to further inform on IOM to health practitioners who were previously unaware of the practice.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 48 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 48 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 15%
Student > Bachelor 5 10%
Librarian 3 6%
Lecturer 3 6%
Researcher 3 6%
Other 9 19%
Unknown 18 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 8%
Social Sciences 4 8%
Arts and Humanities 2 4%
Psychology 2 4%
Other 4 8%
Unknown 20 42%
Attention Score in Context

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 13 September 2021.
All research outputs
#5,558,380
of 22,988,380 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Public Health
#1,758
of 10,171 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#79,213
of 283,559 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Public Health
#27
of 101 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,988,380 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,171 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 283,559 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 101 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 72% of its contemporaries.