↓ Skip to main content

Risk assessment and decision making about in-labour transfer from rural maternity care: a social judgment and signal detection analysis

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, October 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
91 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Risk assessment and decision making about in-labour transfer from rural maternity care: a social judgment and signal detection analysis
Published in
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, October 2012
DOI 10.1186/1472-6947-12-122
Pubmed ID
Authors

Helen Cheyne, Len Dalgleish, Janet Tucker, Fiona Kane, Ashalatha Shetty, Sarah McLeod, Catherine Niven

Abstract

The importance of respecting women's wishes to give birth close to their local community is supported by policy in many developed countries. However, persistent concerns about the quality and safety of maternity care in rural communities have been expressed. Safe childbirth in rural communities depends on good risk assessment and decision making as to whether and when the transfer of a woman in labour to an obstetric led unit is required. This is a difficult decision. Wide variation in transfer rates between rural maternity units have been reported suggesting different decision making criteria may be involved; furthermore, rural midwives and family doctors report feeling isolated in making these decisions and that staff in urban centres do not understand the difficulties they face. In order to develop more evidence based decision making strategies greater understanding of the way in which maternity care providers currently make decisions is required. This study aimed to examine how midwives working in urban and rural settings and obstetricians make intrapartum transfer decisions, and describe sources of variation in decision making.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 91 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 2 2%
Unknown 89 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 23%
Student > Master 16 18%
Researcher 12 13%
Professor > Associate Professor 8 9%
Student > Bachelor 7 8%
Other 15 16%
Unknown 12 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 28 31%
Medicine and Dentistry 24 26%
Psychology 6 7%
Social Sciences 4 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Other 12 13%
Unknown 15 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 15 November 2012.
All research outputs
#9,934,099
of 12,409,138 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#927
of 1,122 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#96,467
of 137,223 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#136
of 154 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,409,138 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,122 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% 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 137,223 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 154 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.