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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
The Chinese-born immigrant infant feeding and growth hypothesis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Public Health, October 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12889-016-3677-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Kristy A. Bolton, Peter Kremer, Kylie D. Hesketh, Rachel Laws, Karen J. Campbell |
| Abstract |
Rapid growth in the first six months of life is a well-established risk factor for childhood obesity, and child feeding practices (supplementation or substitution of breast milk with formula and early introduction of solids) have been reported to predict this. The third largest immigrant group in Australia originate from China. Case-studies reported from Victorian Maternal and Child Health nurses suggest that rapid growth trajectories in the infants of Chinese parents is common place. Furthermore, these nurses report that high value is placed by this client group on rapid growth and a fatter child; that rates of breastfeeding are low and overfeeding of infant formula is high. There are currently no studies which describe infant growth or its correlates among this immigrant group. We postulate that in Australia, Chinese-born immigrant mothers will have different infant feeding practices compared to non-immigrant mothers and this will result in different growth trajectories and risk of overweight. We present the Chinese-born immigrant infant feeding and growth hypothesis - that less breastfeeding, high formula feeding and early introduction of solids in infants of Chinese-born immigrant mothers living in Australia will result in a high protein intake and subsequent rapid growth trajectory and increased risk of overweight and obesity. Three related studies will be conducted to investigate the hypothesis. These will include two quantitative studies (one cross-sectional, one longitudinal) and a qualitative study. The quantitative studies will investigate differences in feeding practices in Chinese-born immigrant compared to non-immigrant mothers and infants; and the growth trajectories over the first 3.5 years of life. The qualitative study will provide more in-depth understanding of the influencing factors on feeding practices in Chinese-born immigrant mothers. This study will provide evidence of the potential modifiable feeding practices and risk of overweight faced by Chinese-born immigrants living in Australia. This is important to help identify groups at risk of rapid growth and subsequent risk of obesity, to identify opportunities for intervention, and to be able to tailor prevention initiatives appropriately. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 2 | 67% |
| Ireland | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 33% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 111 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 111 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 18 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 15 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 12% |
| Researcher | 8 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 6% |
| Other | 18 | 16% |
| Unknown | 32 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 31 | 28% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 15 | 14% |
| Social Sciences | 9 | 8% |
| Psychology | 7 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 11 | 10% |
| Unknown | 35 | 32% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 05 November 2016.
All research outputs
#13,996,981
of 22,899,952 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#10,100
of 14,928 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#176,787
of 320,040 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#156
of 235 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,899,952 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,928 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.9. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% 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 320,040 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 235 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.