| Title |
Routine pre-pregnancy health promotion for improving pregnancy outcomes
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2009
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd007536.pub2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Melissa Whitworth, Therese Dowswell |
| Abstract |
A number of potentially modifiable risk factors are known to be associated with poor pregnancy outcomes. These include smoking, drinking excess alcohol, and poor nutrition. Routine health promotion (encompassing education, advice and general health assessment) in the pre-pregnancy period has been proposed for improving pregnancy outcomes by encouraging behavioural change, or allowing early identification of risk factors. While results from observational studies have been encouraging, this review examines evidence from randomised controlled trials of preconception health promotion. |
Twitter Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 3 | 75% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 75% |
| Scientists | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 322 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 4 | 1% |
| United States | 3 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 3 | <1% |
| Ireland | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| South Africa | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 309 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 58 | 18% |
| Researcher | 48 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 40 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 34 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 19 | 6% |
| Other | 57 | 18% |
| Unknown | 66 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 90 | 28% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 45 | 14% |
| Social Sciences | 30 | 9% |
| Psychology | 30 | 9% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 8 | 2% |
| Other | 39 | 12% |
| Unknown | 80 | 25% |
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 03 December 2020.
All research outputs
#5,637,156
of 22,753,345 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,502
of 12,315 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#26,126
of 93,586 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#37
of 84 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,753,345 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 12,315 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.3. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% 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 93,586 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 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 84 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 55% of its contemporaries.