↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Interventions for supporting pregnant women's decision-making about mode of birth after a caesarean

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2013
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 (79th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
6 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
57 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
321 Mendeley
Title
Interventions for supporting pregnant women's decision-making about mode of birth after a caesarean
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010041.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dell Horey, Michelle Kealy, Mary-Ann Davey, Rhonda Small, Caroline A Crowther

Abstract

Pregnant women who have previously had a caesarean birth and who have no contraindication for vaginal birth after caesarean (VBAC) may need to decide whether to choose between a repeat caesarean birth or to commence labour with the intention of achieving a VBAC. Women need information about their options and interventions designed to support decision-making may be helpful. Decision support interventions can be implemented independently, or shared with health professionals during clinical encounters or used in mediated social encounters with others, such as telephone decision coaching services. Decision support interventions can include decision aids, one-on-one counselling, group information or support sessions and decision protocols or algorithms. This review considers any decision support intervention for pregnant women making birth choices after a previous caesarean birth.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 321 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 3 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 316 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 50 16%
Student > Master 49 15%
Researcher 44 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 31 10%
Student > Postgraduate 19 6%
Other 64 20%
Unknown 64 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 114 36%
Nursing and Health Professions 48 15%
Social Sciences 23 7%
Psychology 19 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 2%
Other 32 10%
Unknown 77 24%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 22 December 2021.
All research outputs
#4,502,133
of 22,738,543 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,851
of 12,315 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,121
of 198,235 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#146
of 256 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,738,543 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th 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 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% 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 198,235 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 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 256 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.