↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Traditional birth attendant training for improving health behaviours and pregnancy outcomes

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
2 policy sources
twitter
3 tweeters
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
67 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
272 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Traditional birth attendant training for improving health behaviours and pregnancy outcomes
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2012
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd005460.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lynn M Sibley, Theresa Ann Sipe, Danika Barry

Abstract

Between the 1970s and 1990s, the World Health Organization promoted traditional birth attendant (TBA) training as one strategy to reduce maternal and neonatal mortality. To date, evidence in support of TBA training is limited but promising for some mortality outcomes.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 272 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Colombia 1 <1%
Ethiopia 1 <1%
Indonesia 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Peru 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
Other 1 <1%
Unknown 262 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 64 24%
Researcher 42 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 31 11%
Student > Bachelor 30 11%
Other 18 7%
Other 48 18%
Unknown 39 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 101 37%
Nursing and Health Professions 46 17%
Social Sciences 27 10%
Psychology 13 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 4%
Other 28 10%
Unknown 47 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 January 2020.
All research outputs
#1,947,344
of 17,349,416 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,573
of 11,660 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,459
of 206,526 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#97
of 215 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,349,416 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,660 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% 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 206,526 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 215 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.