↓ Skip to main content

Feasibility of community level interventions for pre-eclampsia: perspectives, knowledge and task-sharing from Nigeria, Mozambique, Pakistan and India

Overview of attention for article published in Reproductive Health, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
158 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
Feasibility of community level interventions for pre-eclampsia: perspectives, knowledge and task-sharing from Nigeria, Mozambique, Pakistan and India
Published in
Reproductive Health, September 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12978-016-0245-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mary V. Kinney, Jeffrey Michael Smith, Tanya Doherty, Jorge Hermida, Karen Daniels, José M. Belizán

Abstract

Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (HDP), particularly pre-eclampsia and eclampsia, remain one of the leading causes of maternal mortality and are contributory in many foetal/newborn deaths. This editorial discusses a supplement of seven papers which provide the results of the first round of the CLIP (Community Level Interventions for Pre-eclampsia) Feasibility Studies. These studies report a number of enablers and barriers in each setting, which have informed the implementation of a cluster-randomized trial (cRCT) aimed at reducing pre-eclampsia-related, and all-cause, maternal and perinatal mortality and major morbidity using community-based identification and treatment of pre-eclampsia in selected geographies of Nigeria, Mozambique, Pakistan and India. This supplement unpacks the diverse community perspectives on determinants of maternal health, variant health worker knowledge and routine management of HDP, and viability of task sharing for preeclampsia identification and management in select settings. These studies demonstrate the need for strategies to improve health worker knowledge and routine management of HDP and consideration of expanding the role of community health workers to reach the most remote women and families with health education and access to health services.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users 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 158 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 157 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 35 22%
Student > Bachelor 18 11%
Researcher 17 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 9%
Student > Postgraduate 8 5%
Other 23 15%
Unknown 43 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 38 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 33 21%
Social Sciences 14 9%
Psychology 4 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 2%
Other 17 11%
Unknown 49 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 February 2017.
All research outputs
#13,131,140
of 22,893,031 outputs
Outputs from Reproductive Health
#929
of 1,418 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#164,623
of 322,487 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Reproductive Health
#27
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,893,031 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,418 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.1. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% 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 322,487 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.