| Title |
Midwife continuity of care models versus other models of care for childbearing women
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2024
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd004667.pub6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jane Sandall, Cristina Fernandez Turienzo, Declan Devane, Hora Soltani, Paddy Gillespie, Simon Gates, Leanne V Jones, Andrew H Shennan, Hannah Rayment-Jones |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 178 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 46 | 26% |
| Australia | 10 | 6% |
| United States | 5 | 3% |
| Ireland | 4 | 2% |
| New Zealand | 4 | 2% |
| Canada | 3 | 2% |
| Spain | 2 | 1% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Jordan | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 4 | 2% |
| Unknown | 98 | 55% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 104 | 58% |
| Scientists | 43 | 24% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 26 | 15% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 5 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 75 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
| Bangladesh | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 73 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unspecified | 11 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 7% |
| Lecturer | 5 | 7% |
| Other | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 14 | 19% |
| Unknown | 27 | 36% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 13 | 17% |
| Unspecified | 13 | 17% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 15% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 4% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 4 | 5% |
| Unknown | 30 | 40% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 146. 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 19 June 2024.
All research outputs
#294,895
of 26,169,168 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#478
of 13,188 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,408
of 339,405 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2
of 99 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,169,168 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,188 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 34.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 339,405 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 99 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.