↓ Skip to main content

Practices and Perceptions of Animal Contact and Associated Health Outcomes in Pregnant Women and New Mothers

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Veterinary Science, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
39 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
Practices and Perceptions of Animal Contact and Associated Health Outcomes in Pregnant Women and New Mothers
Published in
Frontiers in Veterinary Science, February 2016
DOI 10.3389/fvets.2016.00005
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hsin-Yi Weng, Kimberly Ankrom

Abstract

Companion animals play an important role in our society. However, pregnant women and new mothers might have specific concerns about animal-associated health outcomes because of their altered immune function and posture as well as their newborn babies. The study was conducted to collect baseline data for developing an evidence-based intervention for pregnant women and new mothers to help them adopt certain behaviors to prevent adverse animal-associated health outcomes. A survey, using the Health Belief Model as the theoretical framework, was developed and administered to 326 women attending the Women, Infants, and Children programs in Illinois and Indiana in 2015. Prevalence of dog and cat ownership was estimated to be 39% (95% CI: 33-45%) and 26% (95% CI: 21-31%), respectively. Regardless of pet ownership, 74% of the respondents reported having some type of animal contact in the past month. Pregnancy or the birth of a child altered some animal contact practices among the study participants; particularly a discontinuation or decrease in cleaning cat litter boxes. Reports of diseases contracted from animals were low (4%) in this study. By contrast, animal-associated injuries were prevalent (42%), and the majority were caused by animals the respondents owned (56%). Overall, respondents indicated that they appreciated the benefits of a program addressing animal-associated health outcomes and did not indicate strong resistance to adopt certain behaviors. The majority recognized human health-care providers as a source of information about animal contact and associated health outcomes but less frequently identified veterinarians as a source for such information. In addition, although most of the respondents felt that health-care providers and veterinarians should initiate discussions about preventing animal-associated illness and injuries, only 41% among those who had visited doctors or prenatal care services reported that their health-care providers discussed these issues with them. The results indicate the importance of an intervention concerning animal contact and associated health outcomes for the target population and provide insights to the potential implications of program implementation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 39 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 15%
Student > Bachelor 5 13%
Student > Master 4 10%
Other 3 8%
Professor 3 8%
Other 8 21%
Unknown 10 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 9 23%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 13%
Psychology 4 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 5%
Other 6 15%
Unknown 10 26%
Attention Score in Context

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 01 February 2016.
All research outputs
#17,783,561
of 22,842,950 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Veterinary Science
#3,472
of 6,217 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#270,739
of 397,369 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Veterinary Science
#23
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,842,950 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,217 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% 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 397,369 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.