↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Alternative versus conventional institutional settings for birth

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
policy
1 policy source
twitter
18 tweeters
facebook
6 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
video
1 video uploader

Citations

dimensions_citation
133 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
389 Mendeley
Title
Alternative versus conventional institutional settings for birth
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2012
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd000012.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ellen D Hodnett, Soo Downe, Denis Walsh

Abstract

Alternative institutional settings have been established for the care of pregnant women who prefer little or no medical intervention. The settings may offer care throughout pregnancy and birth, or only during labour; they may be part of hospitals or freestanding entities. Specially designed labour rooms include bedroom-like rooms, ambient rooms, and Snoezelen rooms.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 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 389 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 4 1%
South Africa 2 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
New Zealand 1 <1%
Peru 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 377 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 78 20%
Student > Master 62 16%
Researcher 43 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 34 9%
Lecturer 30 8%
Other 87 22%
Unknown 55 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 116 30%
Medicine and Dentistry 110 28%
Social Sciences 34 9%
Psychology 16 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 2%
Other 35 9%
Unknown 70 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 31. 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 September 2019.
All research outputs
#775,602
of 17,359,532 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,004
of 11,660 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,917
of 137,573 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8
of 108 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,359,532 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% 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 25.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 137,573 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 108 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 93% of its contemporaries.