↓ Skip to main content

Barriers to the implementation of preconception care guidelines as perceived by general practitioners: a qualitative study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, January 2013
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 (84th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
147 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
269 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
Barriers to the implementation of preconception care guidelines as perceived by general practitioners: a qualitative study
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, January 2013
DOI 10.1186/1472-6963-13-36
Pubmed ID
Authors

Danielle Mazza, Anna Chapman, Susan Michie

Abstract

Despite strong evidence of the benefits of preconception interventions for improving pregnancy outcomes, the delivery and uptake of preconception care and periconceptional folate supplementation remain low. General practitioners play a central role in the delivery of preconception care. Understanding general practitioners' perceptions of the barriers and enablers to implementing preconception care allows for more appropriate targeting of quality improvement interventions. Consequently, the aim of this study was to examine the barriers and enablers to the delivery and uptake of preconception care guidelines from general practitioners' perspective using theoretical domains related to behaviour change.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 269 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 265 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 44 16%
Student > Bachelor 29 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 28 10%
Researcher 26 10%
Student > Postgraduate 16 6%
Other 47 17%
Unknown 79 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 70 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 52 19%
Social Sciences 17 6%
Psychology 14 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 3%
Other 27 10%
Unknown 81 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 08 March 2016.
All research outputs
#4,015,979
of 22,696,971 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#1,824
of 7,590 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#43,547
of 282,282 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#23
of 107 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,696,971 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,590 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% 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 282,282 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 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 107 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.